Articles in This Slice

253

GORDON, LORD GEORGE (1751-1793), third and youngest son of Cosmo George, duke of Gordon, was born in London on the 26th of December 1751. After completing his education at Eton, he entered the navy, where he rose to the rank of lieutenant in 1772, but Lord Sandwich, then at the head of the admiralty, would not promise him the command of a ship, and he resigned his commission shortly before the beginning of the American War. In 1774 the pocket borough of Ludgershall was bought for him by General Fraser, whom he was opposing in Inverness-shire, in order to bribe him not to contest the county. He was considered flighty, and was not looked upon as being of any importance. In 1779 he organized, and made himself head of the Protestant associations, formed to secure the repeal of the Catholic Relief Act of 1778. On the 2nd of June 1780 he headed the mob which marched in procession from St George’s Fields to the Houses of Parliament in order to present the monster petition against the acts. After the mob reached Westminster a terrific riot ensued, which continued several days, during which the city was virtually at their mercy. At first indeed they dispersed after threatening to make a forcible entry into the House of Commons, but reassembled soon afterwards and destroyed several Roman Catholic chapels, pillaged the private dwellings of many Roman Catholics, set fire to Newgate and broke open all the other prisons, attacked the Bank of England and several other public buildings, and continued the work of violence and conflagration until the interference of the military, by whom no fewer than 450 persons were killed and wounded before the riots were quelled. For his share in instigating the riots Lord Gordon was apprehended on a charge of high treason; but, mainly through the skilful and eloquent defence of Erskine, he was acquitted on the ground that he had no treasonable intentions. His life was henceforth full of crack-brained schemes, political and financial. In 1786 he was excommunicated by the archbishop of Canterbury for refusing to bear witness in an ecclesiastical suit; and in 1787 he was convicted of libelling the queen of France, the French ambassador and the administration of justice in England. He was, however, permitted to withdraw from the court without bail, and made his escape to Holland; but on account of representations from the court of Versailles he was commanded to quit that country, and, returning to England, was apprehended, and in January 1788 was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in Newgate, where he lived at his ease, giving dinners and dances. As he could not obtain securities for his good behaviour on the termination of his term of imprisonment, he was not allowed to leave Newgate, and there he died of delirious fever on the 1st of November 1793. Some time before his apprehension he had become a convert to Judaism, and had undergone the initiatory rite.

GORDON, SIR JOHN WATSON (1788-1864), Scottish painter, was the eldest son of Captain Watson, R.N., a cadet of the family of Watson of Overmains, in the county of Berwick. He was born in Edinburgh in 1788, and was educated specially with a view to his joining the Royal Engineers. He entered as a student in the government school of design, under the management of the Board of Manufactures. His natural taste for art quickly developed itself, and his father was persuaded to allow him to adopt it as his profession. Captain Watson was himself a skilful draughtsman, and his brother George Watson, afterwards president of the Scottish Academy, stood high as a portrait painter, second only to Sir Henry Raeburn, who also was a friend of the family. In the year 1808 John sent to the exhibition of the Lyceum in Nicolson Street a subject from the Lay of the Last Minstrel, and continued for some years to exhibit fancy subjects; but, although freely and sweetly painted, they were altogether without the force and character which stamped his portrait pictures as the works of a master. After the death of Sir Henry Raeburn in 1823, he succeeded to much of his practice. He assumed in 1826 the name of Gordon. One of the earliest of his famous sitters was Sir Walter Scott, who sat for a first portrait in 1820. Then came J. G. Lockhart in 1821; Professor Wilson, 1822 and 1850, two portraits; Sir Archibald Alison, 1839; Dr Chalmers, 1844; a little later De Quincey, and Sir David Brewster, 1864. Among his most important works may be mentioned the earl of Dalhousie (1833), in the Archers’ Hall, Edinburgh; Sir Alexander Hope (1835), in the county buildings, Linlithgow; Lord President Hope, in the Parliament House; and Dr Chalmers. These, unlike his later works, are generally rich in colour. The full length of Dr Brunton (1844), and Dr Lee, the principal of the university (1846), both on the staircase of the college library, mark a modification of his style, which ultimately resolved itself into extreme simplicity, both of colour and treatment.

During the last twenty years of his life he painted many distinguished Englishmen who came to Edinburgh to sit to him. And it is significant that David Cox, the landscape painter, on being presented with his portrait, subscribed for by many friends, chose to go to Edinburgh to have it executed by Watson Gordon, although he neither knew the painter personally nor had ever before visited the country. Among the portraits painted during this period, in what may be termed his third style, are De Quincey, in the National Portrait Gallery, London; General Sir Thomas Macdougall Brisbane, in the Royal Society; the prince of Wales, Lord Macaulay, Sir M. Packington, Lord Murray, Lord Cockburn, Lord Rutherford and Sir John Shaw Lefevre, in the Scottish National Gallery. These latter pictures are mostly clear and grey, sometimes showing little or no positive colour, the flesh itself being very grey, and the handling extremely masterly, though never obtruding its cleverness. He was very successful in rendering acute observant character. A good example of his last style, showing pearly flesh-painting freely handled, yet highly finished, is his head of Sir John Shaw Lefevre.

John Watson Gordon was one of the earlier members of the Royal Scottish Academy, and was elected its president in 1850; he was at the same time appointed limner for Scotland to the queen, and received the honour of knighthood. Since 1841 he had been an associate of the Royal Academy, and in 1851 he was elected a royal academician. He died on the 1st of June 1864.

254

GORDON, LEON, originally Judah Loeb Ben Asher (1831-1892), Russian-Jewish poet and novelist (Hebrew), was born at Wilna in 1831 and died at St Petersburg in 1892. He took a leading part in the modern revival of the Hebrew language and culture. His satires did much to rouse the Russian Jews to a new sense of the reality of life, and Gordon was the apostle of enlightenment in the Ghettos. His Hebrew style is classical and pure. His poems were collected in four volumes, Kol Shire Yehudah (St Petersburg, 1883-1884); his novels in Kol Kithbe Yehuda (Odessa, 1889).

GORDON, PATRICK (1635-1699), Russian general, was descended from a Scottish family of Aberdeenshire, who possessed the small estate of Auchleuchries, and were connected with the house of Haddo. He was born in 1635, and after completing his education at the parish schools of Cruden and Ellon, entered, in his fifteenth year, the Jesuit college at Braunsberg, Prussia; but, as “his humour could not endure such a still and strict way of living,” he soon resolved to return home. He changed his mind, however, before re-embarking, and after journeying on foot in several parts of Germany, ultimately, in 1655, enlisted at Hamburg in the Swedish service. In the course of the next five years he served alternately with the Poles and Swedes as he was taken prisoner by either. In 1661, after further experience as a soldier of fortune, he took service in the Russian army under Alexis I., and in 1665 he was sent on a special mission to England. After his return he distinguished himself in several wars against the Turks and Tatars in southern Russia, and in recognition of his services he in 1678 was made major-general, in 1679 was appointed to the chief command at Kiev, and in 1683 was made lieutenant-general. He visited England in 1686, and in 1687 and 1689 took part as quartermaster-general in expeditions against the Crim Tatars in the Crimea, being made full general for his services, in spite of the denunciations of the Greek Church to which, as a heretic, he was exposed. On the breaking out of the revolution in Moscow in 1689, Gordon with the troops he commanded virtually decided events in favour of the tsar Peter I., and against the tsaritsa Sophia. He was therefore during the remainder of his life in high favour with the tsar, who confided to him the command of his capital during his absence from Russia, employed him in organizing his army according to the European system, and latterly raised him to the rank of general-in-chief. He died on the 29th of November 1699. The tsar, who had visited him frequently during his illness, was with him when he died, and with his own hands closed his eyes.

GORDON-CUMMING, ROUALEYN GEORGE (1820-1866), Scottish traveller and sportsman, known as the “lion hunter,” was born on the 15th of March 1820. He was the second son of Sir William G. Gordon-Cumming, 2nd baronet of Altyre and Gordonstown, Elginshire. From his early years he was distinguished by his passion for sport. He was educated at Eton, and at eighteen joined the East India Co.’s service as a cornet in the Madras Light Cavalry. The climate of India not suiting him, after two years’ experience he retired from the service and returned to Scotland. During his stay in the East he had laid the foundation of his collection of hunting trophies and specimens of natural history. In 1843 he joined the Cape Mounted Rifles, but for the sake of absolute freedom sold out at the end of the year and with an ox wagon and a few native followers set out for the interior. He hunted chiefly in Bechuanaland and the Limpopo valley, regions then swarming with big game. In 1848 he returned to England. The story of his remarkable exploits is vividly told in his book, Five Years of a Hunter’s Life in the Far Interior of South Africa (London, 1850, 3rd ed. 1851). Of this volume, received at first with incredulity by stay-at-home critics, David Livingstone, who furnished Gordon-Cumming with most of his native guides, wrote: “I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Cumming’s book conveys a truthful idea of South African hunting” (Missionary Travels, chap. vii.). His collection of hunting trophies was exhibited in London in 1851 at the Great Exhibition, and was illustrated by a lecture delivered by Gordon-Cumming. The collection, known as “The South Africa Museum,” was afterwards exhibited in various parts of the country. In 1858 Gordon-Cumming went to live at Fort Augustus on the Caledonian Canal, where the exhibition of his trophies attracted many visitors. He died there on the 24th of March 1866.

GORE, CATHERINE GRACE FRANCES (1799-1861), English novelist and dramatist, the daughter of Charles Moody, a wine-merchant, was born in 1799 at East Retford, Nottinghamshire. In 1823 she was married to Captain Charles Gore; and, in the next year, she published her first work, Theresa Marchmont, or the Maid of Honour. Then followed, among others, the Lettre de Cachet (1827), The Reign of Terror (1827), Hungarian Tales (1829), Manners of the Day (1830), Mothers and Daughters (1831), and The Fair of May Fair (1832), Mrs Armytage (1836). Every succeeding year saw several volumes from her pen: The Cabinet Minister and The Courtier of the Days of Charles II., in 1839; Preferment in 1840. In 1841 Cecil, or the Adventures of a Coxcomb, attracted considerable attention. Greville, or a Season in Paris appeared in the same year; then Ormington, or Cecil a Peer, Fascination, The Ambassador’s Wife; and in 1843 The Banker’s Wife. Mrs Gore continued to write, with unfailing fertility of invention, till her death on the 29th of January 1861. She also wrote some dramas of which the most successful was the School for Coquettes, produced at the Haymarket (1831). She was a woman of versatile talent, and set to music Burns’s “And ye shall walk in silk attire,” one of the most popular songs of her day. Her extraordinary literary industry is proved by the existence of more than seventy distinct works. Her best novels are Cecil, or the Adventures of a Coxcomb, and The Banker’s Wife. Cecil gives extremely vivid sketches of London fashionable life, and is full of happy epigrammatic touches. For the knowledge of London clubs displayed in it Mrs Gore was indebted to William Beckford, the author of Vathek. The Banker’s Wife is distinguished by some clever studies of character, especially in the persons of Mr Hamlyn, the cold calculating money-maker, and his warm-hearted country neighbour, Colonel Hamilton.

Mrs Gore’s novels had an immense temporary popularity; they were parodied by Thackeray in Punch, in his “Lords and Liveries by the author of Dukes and Déjeuners”; but, tedious as they are to present-day readers, they presented on the whole faithful pictures of the contemporary life and pursuits of the English upper classes.

GORE, CHARLES (1853-  ), English divine, was born in 1853, the 3rd son of the Hon. Charles Alexander Gore, brother of the 4th earl of Arran. His mother was a daughter of the 4th earl of Bessborough. He was educated at Harrow and at Balliol College, Oxford, and was elected fellow of Trinity College in 1875. From 1880 to 1883 he was vice-principal of the theological college at Cuddesdon, and, when in 1884 Pusey House was founded at Oxford as a home for Dr Pusey’s library and a centre for the propagation of his principles, he was appointed principal, a position which he held until 1893. As principal of Pusey House Mr Gore exercised a wide influence over undergraduates and the younger clergy, and it was largely, if not mainly, under this influence that the “Oxford Movement” underwent a change which to the survivors of the old school of Tractarians seemed to involve a break with its basic principles. “Puseyism” had been in the highest degree conservative, basing itself on authority and tradition, and repudiating any compromise with the modern critical and liberalizing spirit. Mr Gore, starting from the same 255 basis of faith and authority, soon found from his practical experience in dealing with the “doubts and difficulties” of the younger generation that this uncompromising attitude was untenable, and set himself the task of reconciling the principle of authority in religion with that of scientific authority by attempting to define the boundaries of their respective spheres of influence. To him the divine authority of the Catholic Church was an axiom, and in 1889 he published two works, the larger of which, The Church and the Ministry, is a learned vindication of the principle of Apostolic Succession in the episcopate against the Presbyterians and other Protestant bodies, while the second, Roman Catholic Claims, is a defence, couched in a more popular form, of the Anglican Church and Anglican orders against the attacks of the Romanists.

So far his published views had been in complete consonance with those of the older Tractarians. But in 1890 a great stir was created by the publication, under his editorship, of Lux Mundi, a series of essays by different writers, being an attempt “to succour a distressed faith by endeavouring to bring the Christian Creed into its right relation to the modern growth of knowledge, scientific, historic, critical; and to modern problems of politics and ethics.” Mr Gore himself contributed an essay on “The Holy Spirit and Inspiration.” The book, which ran through twelve editions in a little over a year, met with a somewhat mixed reception. Orthodox churchmen, Evangelical and Tractarian alike, were alarmed by views on the incarnate nature of Christ that seemed to them to impugn his Divinity, and by concessions to the Higher Criticism in the matter of the inspiration of Holy Scriptures which appeared to them to convert the “impregnable rock,” as Gladstone had called it, into a foundation of sand; sceptics, on the other hand, were not greatly impressed by a system of defence which seemed to draw an artificial line beyond which criticism was not to advance. None the less the book produced a profound effect, and that far beyond the borders of the English Church, and it is largely due to its influence, and to that of the school it represents, that the High Church movement developed thenceforth on “Modernist” rather than Tractarian lines.

In 1891 Mr Gore was chosen to deliver the Bampton lectures before the university, and chose for his subject the Incarnation. In these lectures he developed the doctrine, the enunciation of which in Lux Mundi had caused so much heart-searching. This is an attempt to explain how it came that Christ, though incarnate God, could be in error, e.g. in his citations from the Old Testament. The orthodox explanation was based on the principle of accommodation (q.v.). This, however, ignored the difficulty that if Christ during his sojourn on earth was not subject to human limitations, especially of knowledge, he was not a man as other men, and therefore not subject to their trials and temptations. This difficulty Gore sought to meet through the doctrine of the κένωσις. Ever since the Pauline epistles had been received into the canon theologians had, from various points of view, attempted to explain what St Paul meant when he wrote of Christ (2 Phil. ii. 7) that “he emptied himself and took upon him the form of a servant” (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δουλοῦ λαβῶν). According to Mr Gore this means that Christ, on his incarnation, became subject to all human limitations, and had, so far as his life on earth was concerned, stripped himself of all the attributes of the Godhead, including the Divine omniscience, the Divine nature being, as it were, hidden under the human.1

Lux Mundi and the Bampton lectures led to a situation of some tension which was relieved when in 1893 Dr Gore resigned his principalship and became vicar of Radley, a small parish near Oxford. In 1894 he became canon of Westminster. Here he gained commanding influence as a preacher and in 1898 was appointed one of the court chaplains. In 1902 he succeeded J. J. S. Perowne as bishop of Worcester and in 1905 was installed bishop of Birmingham, a new see the creation of which had been mainly due to his efforts. While adhering rigidly to his views on the divine institution of episcopacy as essential to the Christian Church, Dr Gore from the first cultivated friendly relations with the ministers of other denominations, and advocated co-operation with them in all matters when agreement was possible. In social questions he became one of the leaders of the considerable group of High Churchmen known, somewhat loosely, as Christian Socialists. He worked actively against the sweating system, pleaded for European intervention in Macedonia, and was a keen supporter of the Licensing Bill of 1908. In 1892 he founded the clerical fraternity known as the Community of the Resurrection. Its members are priests, who are bound by the obligation of celibacy, live under a common rule and with a common purse. Their work is pastoral, evangelistic, literary and educational. In 1898 the House of the Resurrection at Mirfield, near Huddersfield, became the centre of the community; in 1903 a college for training candidates for orders was established there, and in the same year a branch house, for missionary work, was set up in Johannesburg in South Africa.

GORE. (1) (O. Eng. gor, dung or filth), a word formerly used in the sense of dirt, but now confined to blood that has thickened after being shed. (2) (O. Eng. gára, probably connected with gare, an old word for “spear”), something of triangular shape, resembling therefore a spear-head. The word is used for a tapering strip of land, in the “common or open field” system of agriculture, where from the shape of the land the acre or half-acre strips could not be portioned out in straight divisions. Similarly “gore” is used in the United States, especially in Maine and Vermont, for a strip of land left out in surveying when divisions are made and boundaries marked. The triangular sections of material used in forming the covering of a balloon or an umbrella are also called “gores,” and in dressmaking the term is used for a triangular piece of material inserted in a dress to adjust the difference in widths. To gore, i.e. to stab or pierce with any sharp instrument, but more particularly used of piercing with the horns of a bull, is probably directly connected with gare, a spear.

GOREE, an island off the west coast of Africa, forming part of the French colony of Senegal. It lies at the entrance of the large natural harbour formed by the peninsula of Cape Verde. The island, some 900 yds. long by 330 broad, and 3 m. distant from the nearest point of the mainland, is mostly barren rock. The greater part of its surface is occupied by a town, formerly a thriving commercial entrepôt and a strong military post. Until 1906 it was a free port. With the rise of Dakar (q.v.), c. 1860, on the adjacent coast, Goree lost its trade and its inhabitants, mostly Jolofs, had dwindled in 1905 to about 1500. Its healthy climate, however, makes it useful as a sanatorium. The streets are narrow, and the houses, mainly built of dark-red stone, are flat-roofed. The castle of St Michael, the governor’s residence, the hospital and barracks, testify to the former importance of the town. Within the castle is an artesian well, the only water-supply, save that collected in rain tanks, on the island. Goree was first occupied by the Dutch, who took possession of it early in the 17th century and called it Goeree or Goedereede, in memory of the island on their own coast now united with Overflakkee. Its native name is Bir, i.e. a belly, in allusion to its shape. It was captured by the English under Commodore (afterwards Admiral Sir Robert) Holmes in 1663, but retaken in the following year by de Ruyter. The Dutch were finally expelled in 1677 by the French under Admiral d’Estrées. Goree subsequently fell again into the hands of the English, but was definitely occupied by France in 1817 (see Senegal: History).

GORGE, strictly the French word for the throat considered externally. Hence it is applied in falconry to a hawk’s crop, 256 and thus, with the sense of something greedy or ravenous, to food given to a hawk and to the contents of a hawk’s crop or stomach. It is from this sense that the expression of a person’s “gorge rising at” anything in the sense of loathing or disgust is derived. “Gorge,” from analogy with “throat,” is used with the meaning of a narrow opening as of a ravine or valley between hills; in fortification, of the neck of an outwork or bastion; and in architecture, of the narrow part of a Roman Doric column, between the echinus and the astragal. From “gorge” also comes a diminutive “gorget,” a portion of a woman’s costume in the middle ages, being a close form of wimple covering the neck and upper part of the breast, and also that part of the body armour covering the neck and collarbone (see Gorget). The word “gorgeous,” of splendid or magnificent appearance, comes from the O. Fr. gorgias, with the same meaning, and has very doubtfully been connected with gorge, a ruffle or neck-covering, of a supposed elaborate kind.

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR (1818-  ), Hungarian soldier, was born at Toporcz, in Upper Hungary, on the 30th of January 1818. He came of a Saxon noble family who were converts to Protestantism. In 1837 he entered the Bodyguard of Hungarian Nobles at Vienna, where he combined military service with a course of study at the university. In 1845, on the death of his father, he retired from the army and devoted himself to the study of chemistry at Prague, after which he retired to the family estates in Hungary. On the outbreak of the revolutionary War of 1848, Görgei offered his sword to the Hungarian government. Entering the Honvéd army with the rank of captain, he was employed in the purchase of arms, and soon became major and commandant of the national guards north of the Theiss. Whilst he was engaged in preventing the Croatian army from crossing the Danube, at the island of Csepel, below Pest, the wealthy Hungarian magnate Count Eugene Zichy fell into his hands, and Görgei caused him to be arraigned before a court-martial on a charge of treason and immediately hanged. After various successes over the Croatian forces, of which the most remarkable was that at Ozora, where 10,000 prisoners fell into his hands, Görgei was appointed commander of the army of the Upper Danube, but, on the advance of Prince Windischgrätz across the Leitha, he resolved to fall back, and in spite of the remonstrances of Kossuth he held to his resolution and retreated upon Waitzen. Here, irritated by what he considered undue interference with his plans, he issued (January 5th, 1849) a proclamation throwing the blame for the recent want of success upon the government, thus virtually revolting against their authority. Görgei retired to the Hungarian Erzgebirge and conducted operations on his own initiative. Meanwhile the supreme command had been conferred upon the Pole Dembinski, but the latter fought without success the battle of Kapolna, at which action Görgei’s corps arrived too late to take an effective part, and some time after this the command was again conferred upon Görgei. The campaign in the spring of 1849 was brilliantly conducted by him, and in a series of engagements, he defeated Windischgrätz. In April he won the victories of Gödöllö Izaszeg and Nagy Sarló, relieved Komorn, and again won a battle at Acs or Waitzen. Had he followed up his successes by taking the offensive against the Austrian frontier, he might perhaps have dictated terms in the Austrian capital itself. As it was, he contented himself with reducing Ofen, the Hungarian capital, in which he desired to re-establish the diet, and after effecting this capture he remained inactive for some weeks. Meanwhile, at a diet held at Debreczin, Kossuth had formally proposed the dethronement of the Habsburg dynasty and Hungary had been proclaimed a republic. Görgei had refused the field-marshal’s bâton offered him by Kossuth and was by no means in sympathy with the new régime. However, he accepted the portfolio of minister of war, while retaining the command of the troops in the field. The Russians had now intervened in the struggle and made common cause with the Austrians; the allies were advancing into Hungary on all sides, and Görgei was defeated by Haynau at Pered (20th-21st of June). Kossuth, perceiving the impossibility of continuing the struggle and being unwilling himself to make terms, resigned his position as dictator, and was succeeded by Görgei, who meanwhile had been fighting hard against the various columns of the enemy. Görgei, convinced that he could not break through the enemy’s lines, surrendered, with his army of 20,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry, to the Russian general Rüdiger at Vilagos. Görgei was not court-marshaled, as were his generals, but kept in confinement at Klagenfurt, where he lived, chiefly employed in chemical work, until 1867, when he was pardoned and returned to Hungary. The surrender, and particularly the fact that his life was spared while his generals and many of his officers and men were hanged or shot, led, perhaps naturally, to his being accused of treason by public opinion of his countrymen. After his release he played no further part in public life. Even in 1885 an attempt which was made by a large number of his old comrades to rehabilitate him was not favourably received in Hungary. After some years’ work as a railway engineer he retired to Visegrád, where he lived thenceforward in retreat. (See also Hungary: History.)

General Görgei wrote a justification of his operations (Mein Leben und Wirken in Ungarn 1848-1859, Leipzig, 1852), an anonymous paper under the title Was verdanken wir der Revolution? (1875), and a reply to Kossuth’s charges (signed “Joh. Demár”) in Budapesti Szemle, 1881, 25-26. Amongst those who wrote in his favour were Captain Stephan Görgei (1848 és 1849 böl, Budapest, 1885), and Colonel Aschermann (Ein offenes Wort in der Sache des Honvéd-Generals Arthur Görgei, Klausenburg, 1867).

GORGES, SIR FERDINANDO (c. 1566-1647), English colonial pioneer in America and the founder of Maine, was born in Somersetshire, England, probably in 1566. From youth both a soldier and a sailor, he was a prisoner in Spain at the age of twenty-one, having been captured by a ship of the Spanish Armada. In 1589 he was in command of a small body of troops fighting for Henry IV. of France, and after distinguishing himself at the siege of Rouen was knighted there in 1591. In 1596 he was commissioned captain and keeper of the castle and fort at Plymouth and captain of St Nicholas Isle; in 1597 he accompanied Essex on the expedition to the Azores; in 1599 assisted him in the attempt to suppress the Tyrone rebellion in Ireland, and in 1600 was implicated in Essex’s own attempt at rebellion in London. In 1603, on the accession of James I., he was suspended from his post at Plymouth, but was restored in the same year and continued to serve as “governor of the forts and island of Plymouth” until 1629, when, his garrison having been without pay for three and a half years, his fort a ruin, and all his applications for aid having been ignored, he resigned. About 1605 he began to be greatly interested in the New World; in 1606 he became a member of the Plymouth Company, and he laboured zealously for the founding of the Popham colony at the mouth of the Sagadahoc (now the Kennebec) river in 1607. For several years following the failure of that enterprise in 1608 he continued to fit out ships for fishing, trading and exploring, with colonization as the chief end in view. He was largely instrumental in procuring the new charter of 1620 for the Plymouth Company, and was at all times of its existence perhaps the most influential member of that body. He was the recipient, either solely or jointly, of several grants of territory from it, for one of which he received in 1639 the royal charter of Maine (see Maine). In 1635 he sought to be appointed governor-general of all New England, but the English Civil War—in which he espoused the royal cause—prevented him from ever actually holding that office. A short time before his death at Long Ashton in 1647 he wrote his Briefe Narration of the Originall Undertakings of the Advancement of Plantations into the Parts of America. He was an advocate, especially late in life, of the feudal type of colony.

257

GORGET (O. Fr. gorgete, dim. of gorge, throat), the name applied after about 1480 to the collar-piece of a suit of armour. It was generally formed of small overlapping rings of plate, and attached either to the body armour or to the armet. It was worn in the 16th and 17th centuries with the half-armour, with the plain cuirass, and even occasionally without any body armour at all. During these times it gradually became a distinctive badge for officers, and as such it survived in several armies—in the form of a small metal plate affixed to the front of the collar of the uniform coat—until after the Napoleonic wars. In the German army to-day a gorget-plate of this sort is the distinctive mark of military police, while the former officer’s gorget is represented in British uniforms by the red patches or tabs worn on the collar by staff officers and by the white patches of the midshipmen in the Royal Navy.

GORGIAS (c. 483-375 B.C.), Greek sophist and rhetorician, was a native of Leontini in Sicily. In 427 he was sent by his fellow-citizens at the head of an embassy to ask Athenian protection against the aggression of the Syracusans. He subsequently settled in Athens, and supported himself by the practice of oratory and by teaching rhetoric. He died at Larissa in Thessaly. His chief claim to recognition consists in the fact that he transplanted rhetoric to Greece, and contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language of literary prose. He was the author of a lost work On Nature or the Non-existent (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἦ περὶ φύσεως, fragments edited by M. C. Valeton, 1876), the substance of which may be gathered from the writings of Sextus Empiricus, and also from the treatise (ascribed to Theophrastus) De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia. Gorgias is the central figure in the Platonic dialogue Gorgias. The genuineness of two rhetorical exercises (The Encomium of Helen and The Defence of Palamedes, edited with Antiphon by F. Blass in the Teubner series, 1881), which have come down under his name, is disputed.

GORGON, GORGONS (Gr. Γοργώ, Γοργόνες, the “terrible,” or, according to some, the “loud-roaring”), a figure or figures in Greek mythology. Homer speaks of only one Gorgon, whose head is represented in the Iliad (v. 741) as fixed in the centre of the aegis of Zeus. In the Odyssey (xi. 633) she is a monster of the under-world. Hesiod increases the number of Gorgons to three—Stheno (the mighty), Euryale (the far-springer) and Medusa (the queen), and makes them the daughters of the sea-god Phorcys and of Keto. Their home is on the farthest side of the western ocean; according to later authorities, in Libya (Hesiod, Theog. 274; Herodotus ii. 91; Pausanias ii. 21). The Attic tradition, reproduced in Euripides (Ion 1002), regarded the Gorgon as a monster, produced by Gaea to aid her sons the giants against the gods and slain by Athena (the passage is a locus classicus on the aegis of Athena).

The Gorgons are represented as winged creatures, having the form of young women; their hair consists of snakes; they are round-faced, flat-nosed, with tongues lolling out and large projecting teeth. Sometimes they have wings of gold, brazen claws and the tusks of boars. Medusa was the only one of the three who was mortal; hence Perseus was able to kill her by cutting off her head. From the blood that spurted from her neck sprang Chrysaor and Pegasus, her two sons by Poseidon. The head, which had the power of turning into stone all who looked upon it, was given to Athena, who placed it in her shield; according to another account, Perseus buried it in the market-place of Argos. The hideously grotesque original type of the Gorgoneion, as the Gorgon’s head was called, was placed on the walls of cities, and on shields and breastplates to terrify an enemy (cf. the hideous faces on Chinese soldiers’ shields), and used generally as an amulet, a protection against the evil eye. Heracles is said to have obtained a lock of Medusa’s hair (which possessed the same powers as the head) from Athena and given it to Sterope, the daughter of Cepheus, as a protection for the town of Tegea against attack (Apollodorus ii. 7. 3). According to Roscher, it was supposed, when exposed to view, to bring on a storm, which put the enemy to flight. Frazer (Golden Bough, i. 378) gives examples of the superstition that cut hair caused storms. According to the later idea of Medusa as a beautiful maiden, whose hair had been changed into snakes by Athena, the head was represented in works of art with a wonderfully handsome face, wrapped in the calm repose of death. The Rondanini Medusa at Munich is a famous specimen of this conception. Various accounts of the Gorgons were given by later ancient writers. According to Diod. Sic. (iii. 54. 55) they were female warriors living near Lake Tritonis in Libya, whose queen was Medusa; according to Alexander of Myndus, quoted in Athenaeus (v. p. 221), they were terrible wild animals whose mere look turned men to stone. Pliny (Nat. Hist. vi. 36 [31]) describes them as savage women, whose persons were covered with hair, which gave rise to the story of their snaky hair and girdle. Modern authorities have explained them as the personification of the waves of the sea or of the barren, unproductive coast of Libya; or as the awful darkness of the storm-cloud, which comes from the west and is scattered by the sun-god Perseus. More recent is the explanation of anthropologists that Medusa, whose virtue is really in her head, is derived from the ritual mask common to primitive cults.

GORGONZOLA, a town of Lombardy, Italy, in the province of Milan, from which it is 11 m. E.N.E. by steam tramway. Pop. (1901) 5134. It is the centre of the district in which is produced the well-known Gorgonzola cheese.

GORI, a town of Russian Transcaucasia, in the government of Tiflis and 49 m. by rail N.W. of the city of Tiflis, on the river Kura; altitude, 2010 ft. Pop. (1897) 10,457. The surrounding country is very picturesque. Gori has a high school for girls, and a school for Russian and Tatar teachers. At one time celebrated for its silk and cotton stuffs, it is now famous for corn, reputed the best in Georgia, and the wine is also esteemed. The climate is excellent, delightfully cool in summer, owing to the refreshing breezes from the mountains, though these are, however, at times disagreeable in winter. Gori was founded (1123) by the Georgian king David II., the Renovater, for the Armenians who fled their country on the Persian invasion. The earliest remains of the fortress are Byzantine; it was thoroughly restored in 1634-1658, but destroyed by Nadir Shah of Persia in the 18th century. There is a church constructed in the 17th century by Capuchin missionaries from Rome. Five miles east of Gori is the remarkable rock-cut town of Uplis-tsykhe, which was a fortress in the time of Alexander the Great of Macedon, and an inhabited city in the reign of the Georgian king Bagrat III. (980-1014).

GORILLA (or Pongo), the largest of the man-like apes, and a native of West Africa from the Congo to Cameroon, whence it extends eastwards across the continent to German East Africa. Many naturalists regard the gorilla as best included in the same genus as the chimpanzee, in which case it should be known as Anthropopithecus gorilla, but by others it is regarded as the representative of a genus by itself, when its title will be Gorilla savagei, or G. gorilla. That there are local forms of gorilla is quite certain: but whether any of these are entitled to rank as distinct species may be a matter of opinion. It was long supposed that the apes encountered on an island off the west coast of Africa by Hanno, the Carthaginian, were gorillas, but in the 258 opinion of some of those best qualified to judge, it is probable that the creatures in question were really baboons. The first real account of the gorilla appears to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas’s Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this it appears that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter pongo—names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two species in place of those now in use. Between Battel’s time and 1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for the new ape in 1848. Dr Thomas Savage, a missionary at the Gabun, who sent Owen information with regard to the original skull, had, however, himself proposed the name Troglodytes gorilla in 1847. The first complete skeleton of a gorilla sent to Europe was received at the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1851, and the first complete skin appears to have reached the British Museum in 1858. Paul B. du Chaillu’s account (1861) of his journeys in the Gabun region popularized the knowledge of the existence of the gorilla. Male gorillas largely exceed the females in size, and attain a height of from 5½ ft. to 6½ ft., or perhaps even more. Some of the features distinguishing the gorilla from the mere gorilla-like chimpanzees will be found mentioned in the article Primates. Among them are the small ears, elongated head, the presence of a deep groove alongside the nostrils, the small size of the thumb, and the great length of the arm, which reaches half-way down the shin-bone (tibia) in the erect posture. In old males the eyes are overhung by a beetling penthouse of bone, the hinder half of the middle line of the skull bears a wall-like bony ridge for the attachment of the powerful jaw-muscles, and the tusks, or canines, are of monstrous size, recalling those of a carnivorous animal. The general colour is blackish, with a more or less marked grey or brownish tinge on the hair of the shoulders, and sometimes of chestnut on the head. Mr G. L. Bates (in Proc. Zool. Soc., 1905, vol. i.) states that gorillas only leave the depths of the forest to enter the outlying clearings in the neighbourhood of human settlements when they are attracted by some special fruit or succulent plant; the favourite being the fruit of the “mejom,” a tall cane-like plant (perhaps a kind of Amomum) which grows abundantly on deserted clearings. At one isolated village the natives, who were unarmed, reported that they not unfrequently saw and heard the gorillas, which broke down the stalks of the plantains in the rear of the habitations to tear out and eat the tender heart. On the old clearings of another village Mr Bates himself, although he did not see a gorilla, saw the fresh tracks of these great apes and the torn stems and discarded fruit rinds of the “mejoms,” as well as the broken stalks of the latter, which had been used for beds. On another occasion he came across the bed of an old gorilla which had been used only the night before, as was proved by a negro woman, who on the previous evening had heard the animal breaking and treading down the stalks to form its couch. According to native report, the gorillas sleep on these beds, which are of sufficient thickness to raise them a foot or two above the ground, in a sitting posture, with the head inclined forwards on the breast. In the first case Mr Bates states that the tracks and beds indicated the presence of three or four gorillas, some of which were small. This account does not by any means accord with one given by von Koppenfels, in which it is stated that while the old male gorilla sleeps in a sitting posture at the base of a tree-trunk (no mention being made of a bed), the female and young ones pass the night in a nest in the tree several yards above the ground, made by bending the boughs together and covering them with twigs and moss. Mr Bates’s account, as being based on actual inspection of the beds, is probably the more trustworthy. Even when asleep and snoring, gorillas are difficult to approach, since they awake at the slightest rustle, and an attempt to surround the one heard making his bed by the woman resulted in failure. Most gorillas killed by natives are believed by Mr Bates to have been encountered suddenly in the daytime on the ground or in low trees in the outlying clearings. Many natives, even if armed, refuse, however, to molest an adult male gorilla, on account of its ferocity when wounded. Mr Bates, like Mr Winwood Reade, refused to credit du Chaillu’s account of his having killed gorillas, and stated that the only instance he knew of one of these animals being slain by a European was an old male (now in Mr Walter Rothschild’s museum at Tring) shot by the German trader Paschen in the Yaunde district, of which an illustrated account was published in 1901. Mr E. J. Corns states, however, that two European traders, apparently in the “’eighties” of the 19th century, were in the habit of surrounding and capturing these animals as occasion offered.1 Fully adult gorillas have never been seen alive in captivity—and perhaps never will be, as the creature is ferocious and morose to a degree. So long ago as the year 1855, when the species was known to zoologists only by its skeleton, a gorilla was actually living in England. This animal, a young female, came from the Gabun, and was kept for some months in Wombwell’s travelling menagerie, where it was treated as a pet. On its death, the body was sent to Mr Charles Waterton, of Walton Hall, by whom the skin was mounted in a grotesque manner, and the skeleton given to the Leeds museum. Apparently, however, it was not till several years later that the skin was recognized by Mr A. D. Bartlett as that of a gorilla; the animal having probably been regarded by its owner as a chimpanzee. A young male was purchased by the Zoological Society in October 1887, from Mr Cross, the Liverpool dealer in animals. At the time of arrival it was supposed to be about three years old, and stood 2½ ft. high. A second, a male, supposed to be rather older, was acquired in March 1896, having been brought to Liverpool from the French Congo. It is described as having been thoroughly healthy at the date of its arrival, and of an amiable and tractable disposition. Neither survived long. Two others were received in the Zoological Society’s menagerie in 1904, and another was housed there for a short time in the following year, while a fifth was received in 1906. Falkenstein’s gorilla, exhibited at the Westminster aquarium under the name of pongo, and afterwards at the Berlin aquarium, survived for eighteen months. “Pussi,” the gorilla of the Breslau Zoological Gardens, holds a record for longevity, with over seven years of menagerie life. Writing in 1903 Mr W. T. Hornaday stated that but one live gorilla, and that a tiny infant, had ever landed in the United States; and it lived only five days after arrival.

GORINCHEM, or Gorcum, a fortified town of Holland in the province of south Holland, on the right bank of the Merwede at the confluence of the Linge, 16 m. by rail W. of Dordrecht. It is connected by the Zederik and Merwede canals with Amsterdam, and steamers ply hence in every direction. Pop. (1900) 11,987. Gorinchem possesses several interesting old houses, and overlooking the river are some fortified gateways of the 17th century. The principal buildings are the old church of St Vincent, containing the monuments of the lords of Arkel; the town hall, a prison, custom-house, barracks and a military hospital. The charitable and benevolent institutions are numerous, and there are also a library and several learned associations. Gorinchem possesses a good harbour, and besides working in gold and silver, carries on a considerable trade in grain, hemp, cheese, potatoes, cattle and fish, the salmon fishery being noted. Woerkum, or Woudrichem, a little below the town on the left bank of the Merwede, is famous for its quaint old buildings, which are decorated with mosaics.

GORING, GEORGE GORING, Lord (1608-1657), English Royalist soldier, son of George Goring, earl of Norwich, was born on the 14th of July 1608. He soon became famous at court for his prodigality and dissolute manners. His father-in-law, Richard Boyle, earl of Cork, procured for him a post in the Dutch 259 army with the rank of colonel. He was permanently lamed by a wound received at Breda in 1637, and returned to England early in 1639, when he was made governor of Portsmouth. He served in the Scottish war, and already had a considerable reputation when he was concerned in the “Army Plot.” Officers of the army stationed at York proposed to petition the king and parliament for the maintenance of the royal authority. A second party was in favour of more violent measures, and Goring, in the hope of being appointed lieutenant-general, proposed to march the army on London and overawe the parliament during Strafford’s trial. This proposition being rejected by his fellow officers, he betrayed the proceedings to Mountjoy Blount, earl of Newport, who passed on the information indirectly to Pym in April. Colonel Goring was thereupon called on to give evidence before the Commons, who commended him for his services to the Commonwealth. This betrayal of his comrades induced confidence in the minds of the parliamentary leaders, who sent him back to his Portsmouth command. Nevertheless he declared for the king in August. He surrendered Portsmouth to the parliament in September 1642 and went to Holland to recruit for the Royalist army, returning to England in December. Appointed to a cavalry command by the earl of Newcastle, he defeated Fairfax at Seacroft Moor near Leeds in March 1643, but in May he was taken prisoner at Wakefield on the capture of the town by Fairfax. In April 1644 he effected an exchange. At Marston Moor he commanded the Royalist left, and charged with great success, but, allowing his troopers to disperse in search of plunder, was routed by Cromwell at the close of the battle. In November 1644, on his father’s elevation to the earldom of Norwich, he became Lord Goring. The parliamentary authorities, however, refused to recognize the creation of the earldom, and continued to speak of the father as Lord Goring and the son as General Goring. In August he had been dispatched by Prince Rupert, who recognized his ability, to join Charles in the south, and in spite of his dissolute and insubordinate character he was appointed to supersede Henry, Lord Wilmot, as lieut.-general of the Royalist horse (see Great Rebellion). He secured some successes in the west, and in January 1645 advanced through Hampshire and occupied Farnham; but want of money compelled him to retreat to Salisbury and thence to Exeter. The excesses committed by his troops seriously injured the Royalist cause, and his exactions made his name hated throughout the west. He had himself prepared to besiege Taunton in March, yet when in the next month he was desired by Prince Charles, who was at Bristol, to send reinforcements to Sir Richard Grenville for the siege of Taunton, he obeyed the order only with ill-humour. Later in the month he was summoned with his troops to the relief of the king at Oxford. Lord Goring had long been intriguing for an independent command, and he now secured from the king what was practically supreme authority in the west. It was alleged by the earl of Newport that he was willing to transfer his allegiance once more to the parliament. It is not likely that he meditated open treason, but he was culpably negligent and occupied with private ambitions and jealousies. He was still engaged in desultory operations against Taunton when the main campaign of 1645 opened. For the part taken by Goring’s army in the operations of the Naseby campaign see Great Rebellion. After the decisive defeat of the king, the army of Fairfax marched into the west and defeated Goring in a disastrous fight at Langport on the 10th of July. He made no further serious resistance to the parliamentary general, but wasted his time in frivolous amusements, and in November he obtained leave to quit his disorganized forces and retire to France on the ground of health. His father’s services secured him the command of some English regiments in the Spanish service. He died at Madrid in July or August 1657. Clarendon gives him a very unpleasing character, declaring that “Goring ... would, without hesitation, have broken any trust, or done any act of treachery to have satisfied an ordinary passion or appetite; and in truth wanted nothing but industry (for he had wit, and courage, and understanding and ambition, uncontrolled by any fear of God or man) to have been as eminent and successful in the highest attempt of wickedness as any man in the age he lived in or before. Of all his qualifications dissimulation was his masterpiece; in which he so much excelled, that men were not ordinarily ashamed, or out of countenance, with being deceived but twice by him.”

GORKI, MAXIM (1868-  ), the pen-name of the Russian novelist Alexei Maximovich Pyeshkov, who was born at Nizhni-Novgorod on the 26th of March 1868. His father was a dyer, but he lost both his parents in childhood, and in his ninth year was sent to assist in a boot-shop. We find him afterwards in a variety of callings, but devouring books of all sorts greedily, whenever they fell into his hands. He ran away from the boot-shop and went to help a land-surveyor. He was then a cook on board a steamer and afterwards a gardener. In his fifteenth year he tried to enter a school at Kazan, but was obliged to betake himself again to his drudgery. He became a baker, than hawked about kvas, and helped the barefooted tramps and labourers at the docks. From these he drew some of his most striking pictures, and learned to give sketches of humble life generally with the fidelity of a Defoe. After a long course of drudgery he had the good fortune to obtain the place of secretary to a barrister at Nizhni-Novgorod. This was the turning-point of his fortunes, as he found a sympathetic master who helped him. He also became acquainted with the novelist Korolenko, who assisted him in his literary efforts. His first story was Makar Chudra, which was published in the journal Kavkaz. He contributed to many periodicals and finally attracted attention by his tale called Chelkash, which appeared in Russkoe Bogatsvo (“Russian wealth”). This was followed by a series of tales in which he drew with extraordinary vigour the life of the bosniaki, or tramps. He has sometimes described other classes of society, tradesmen and the educated classes, but not with equal success. There are some vigorous pictures, however, of the trading class in his Foma Gordeyev. But his favourite type is the rebel, the man in revolt against society, and him he describes from personal knowledge, and enlists our sympathies with him. We get such a type completely in Konovalov. Gorki is always preaching that we must have ideals—something better than everyday life, and this view is brought out in his play At the Lowest Depths, which had great success at Moscow, but was coldly received at St Petersburg.

GÖRLITZ, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, on the left bank of the Neisse, 62 m. E. from Dresden on the railway to Breslau, and at the junction of lines to Berlin, Zittau and Halle. Pop. (1885) 55,702, (1905) 80,931. The Neisse at this point is crossed by a railway bridge 1650 ft. long and 120 ft. high, with 32 arches. Görlitz is one of the handsomest, and, owing to the extensive forests of 70,000 acres, which are the property of the municipality, one of the wealthiest towns in Germany. It is surrounded by beautiful walks and fine gardens, and although its old walls and towers have now been demolished, many of its ancient buildings remain to form a picturesque contrast with the signs of modern industry. From the hill called Landskrone, about 1500 ft. high, an extensive prospect is obtained of the surrounding country. The principal buildings are the fine Gothic church of St Peter and St Paul, dating from the 15th century, with two stately towers, a famous organ and a very heavy bell; the Frauen Kirche, erected about the end of the 15th century, and possessing a fine portal and choir in pierced work; the Kloster Kirche, restored in 1868, with handsome choir stalls and a carved altar dating from 1383; and the Roman Catholic church, founded in 1853, in the Roman style of architecture, with beautiful glass windows and oil-paintings. The old town hall (Rathaus) contains a very valuable library, having at its entrance a fine flight of steps. There is 260 also a new town hall which was erected in 1904-1906. Other buildings are: the old bastion, named Kaisertrutz, now used as a guardhouse and armoury; the gymnasium buildings in the Gothic style erected in 1851; the Ruhmeshalle with the Kaiser Friedrich museum, the house of the estates of the province (Ständehaus), two theatres and the barracks. Near the town is the chapel of the Holy Cross, where there is a model of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem made during the 15th century. In the public park there is a bust of Schiller, a monument to Alexander von Humboldt, and a statue of the mystic Jakob Böhme (1575-1624); a monument has been erected in the town in commemoration of the war of 1870-71, and also one to the emperor William I. and a statue of Prince Frederick Charles. In connexion with the natural history society there is a valuable museum, and the scientific institute possesses a large library and a rich collection of antiquities, coins and articles of virtu. Görlitz, next to Breslau, is the largest and most flourishing commercial town of Silesia, and is also regarded as classic ground for the study of German Renaissance architecture. Besides cloth, which forms its staple article of commerce, it has manufactories of various linen and woollen wares, machines, railway wagons, glass, sago, tobacco, leather, chemicals and tiles.

Görlitz existed as a village from a very early period, and at the beginning of the 12th century received civic rights. It was then known as Drebenau, but on being rebuilt after its destruction by fire in 1131 it received the name of Zgorzelice. About the end of the 12th century it was strongly fortified, and for a short time it was the capital of a duchy of Görlitz. It was several times besieged and taken during the Thirty Years’ War, and it also suffered considerably in the Seven Years’ War. In the battle which took place near it between the Austrians and Prussians on the 7th of September 1757, Hans Karl von Winterfeldt, the general of Frederick the Great, was slain. In 1815 the town, with the greater part of Upper Lusatia, came into the possession of Prussia.

GÖRRES, JOHANN JOSEPH VON (1776-1848), German writer, was born on the 25th of January 1776, at Coblenz. His father was a man of moderate means, who sent his son to a Latin college under the direction of the Roman Catholic clergy. The sympathies of the young Görres were from the first strongly with the French Revolution, and the dissoluteness and irreligion of the French exiles in the Rhineland confirmed him in his hatred of princes. He harangued the revolutionary clubs, and insisted on the unity of interests which should ally all civilized states to one another. He then commenced a republican journal called Das rote Blatt, and afterwards Rübezahl, in which he strongly condemned the administration of the Rhenish provinces by France.

After the peace of Campo Formio (1797) there was some hope that the Rhenish provinces would be constituted into an independent republic. In 1799 the provinces sent an embassy, of which Görres was a member, to Paris to put their case before the directory. The embassy reached Paris on the 20th of November 1799; two days before this Napoleon had assumed the supreme direction of affairs. After much delay the embassy was received by him; but the only answer they obtained was “that they might rely on perfect justice, and that the French government would never lose sight of their wants.” Görres on his return published a tract called Resultate meiner Sendung nach Paris, in which he reviewed the history of the French Revolution. During the thirteen years of Napoleon’s dominion Görres lived a retired life, devoting himself chiefly to art or science. In 1801 he married Catherine de Lasaulx, and was for some years teacher at a secondary school in Coblenz; in 1806 he moved to Heidelberg, where he lectured at the university. As a leading member of the Heidelberg Romantic group, he edited together with K. Brentano and L. von Arnim the famous Zeitung für Einsiedler (subsequently re-named Tröst-Einsamkeit), and in 1807 he published Die teutschen Volksbücher. He returned to Coblenz in 1808, and again found occupation as a teacher in a secondary school, supported by civic funds. He now studied Persian, and in two years published a Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt, which was followed ten years later by Das Heldenbuch von Iran, a translation of part of the Shahnama, the epic of Firdousi. In 1813 he actively took up the cause of national independence, and in the following year founded Der rheinische Merkur. The intense earnestness of the paper, the bold outspokenness of its hostility to Napoleon, and its fiery eloquence secured for it almost instantly a position and influence unique in the history of German newspapers. Napoleon himself called it la cinquième puissance. The ideal it insisted on was a united Germany, with a representative government, but under an emperor after the fashion of other days,—for Görres now abandoned his early advocacy of republicanism. When Napoleon was at Elba, Görres wrote an imaginary proclamation issued by him to the people, the intense irony of which was so well veiled that many Frenchmen mistook it for an original utterance of the emperor. He inveighed bitterly against the second peace of Paris (1815), declaring that Alsace and Lorraine should have been demanded back from France.

Stein was glad enough to use the Merkur at the time of the meeting of the congress of Vienna as a vehicle for giving expression to his hopes. But Hardenberg, in May 1815, warned Görres to remember that he was not to arouse hostility against France, but only against Bonaparte. There was also in the Merkur an antipathy to Prussia, a continual expression of the desire that an Austrian prince should assume the imperial title, and also a tendency to pronounced liberalism—all of which made it most distasteful to Hardenberg, and to his master King Frederick William III. Görres disregarded warnings sent to him by the censorship and continued the paper in all its fierceness. Accordingly it was suppressed early in 1816, at the instance of the Prussian government; and soon after Görres was dismissed from his post as teacher at Coblenz. From this time his writings were his sole means of support, and he became a most diligent political pamphleteer. In the wild excitement which followed Kotzebue’s assassination, the reactionary decrees of Carlsbad were framed, and these were the subject of Görres’s celebrated pamphlet Teutschland und die Revolution (1820). In this work he reviewed the circumstances which had led to the murder of Kotzebue, and, while expressing all possible horror at the deed itself, he urged that it was impossible and undesirable to repress the free utterance of public opinion by reactionary measures. The success of the work was very marked, despite its ponderous style. It was suppressed by the Prussian government, and orders were issued for the arrest of Görres and the seizure of his papers. He escaped to Strassburg, and thence went to Switzerland. Two more political tracts, Europa und die Revolution (1821) and In Sachen der Rheinprovinzen und in eigener Angelegenheit (1822), also deserve mention.

In Görres’s pamphlet Die heilige Allianz und die Völker auf dem Kongress zu Verona he asserted that the princes had met together to crush the liberties of the people, and that the people must look elsewhere for help. The “elsewhere” was to Rome; and from this time Görres became a vehement Ultramontane writer. He was summoned to Munich by King Ludwig of Bavaria as Professor of History in the university, and there his writing enjoyed very great popularity. His Christliche Mystik (1836-1842) gave a series of biographies of the saints, together with an exposition of Roman Catholic mysticism. But his most celebrated ultramontane work was a polemical one. Its occasion was the deposition and imprisonment by the Prussian government of the archbishop Clement Wenceslaus, in consequence of the refusal of that prelate to sanction in certain instances the marriages of Protestants and Roman Catholics. Görres in his Athanasius (1837) fiercely upheld the power of the church, although the liberals of later date who have claimed Görres as one of their own school deny that he ever insisted on the absolute supremacy of Rome. Athanasius went through several editions, and originated a long and bitter controversy. In the Historisch-politische Blätter, a Munich journal, Görres and his son Guido (1805-1852) continually upheld the claims of the church. Görres received from the king the order of merit for his services. He died on the 29th of January 1848.

261

GORSAS, ANTOINE JOSEPH (1752-1793), French publicist and politician, was born at Limoges (Haute-Vienne) on the 24th of March 1752, the son of a shoemaker. He established himself as a private tutor in Paris, and presently set up a school for the army at Versailles, which was attended by commoners as well as nobles. In 1781 he was imprisoned for a short time in the Bicêtre on an accusation of corrupting the morals of his pupils, his real offence being the writing of satirical verse. These circumstances explain the violence of his anti-monarchical sentiment. At the opening of the states-general he began to publish the Courrier de Versailles à Paris et de Paris à Versailles, in which appeared on the 4th of October 1789 the account of the banquet of the royal bodyguard. Gorsas is said to have himself read it in public at the Palais Royal, and to have headed one of the columns that marched on Versailles. He then changed the name of his paper to the Courrier des quatre-vingt-trois départements, continuing his incendiary propaganda, which had no small share in provoking the popular insurrections of June and August 1792. During the September massacres he wrote in his paper that the prisons were the centre of an anti-national conspiracy and that the people exercised a just vengeance on the guilty. On the 10th of September 1792 he was elected to the Convention for the department of Seine-et-Oise, and on the 10th of January 1793 was elected one of its secretaries. He sat at first with the Mountain, but having been long associated with Roland and Brissot, his agreement with the Girondists became gradually more pronounced; during the trial of Louis XVI. he dissociated himself more and more from the principles of the Mountain, and he voted for the king’s detention during the war and subsequent banishment. A violent attack on Marat in the Courrier led to an armed raid on his printing establishment on the 9th of March 1793. The place was sacked, but Gorsas escaped the popular fury by flight. The facts being reported to the Convention, little sympathy was shown to Gorsas, and a resolution (which was evaded) was passed forbidding representatives to occupy themselves with journalism. On the 2nd of June he was ordered by the Convention to hold himself under arrest with other members of his party. He escaped to Normandy to join Buzot, and after the defeat of the Girondists at Pacy-sur-Eure he found shelter in Brittany. He was imprudent enough to return to Paris in the autumn, where he was arrested on the 6th of October and guillotined the next day.

GORST, SIR JOHN ELDON (1835-  ). English statesman, was born at Preston in 1835, the son of Edward Chaddock Gorst, who took the name of Lowndes on succeeding to the family estate in 1853. He graduated third wrangler from St John’s College, Cambridge, in 1857, and was admitted to a fellowship. After beginning to read for the bar in London, his father’s illness and death led to his sailing to New Zealand, where he married in 1860 Mary Elizabeth Moore. The Maoris had at that time set up a king of their own in the Waikato district and Gorst, who had made friends with the chief Tamihana (William Thomson), acted as an intermediary between the Maoris and the government. Sir George Grey made him inspector of schools, then resident magistrate, and eventually civil commissioner in Upper Waikato. Tamihana’s influence secured his safety in the Maori outbreak of 1863. In 1908 he published a volume of recollections, under the title of New Zealand Revisited: Recollections of the Days of my Youth. He then returned to England and was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1865, becoming Q.C. in 1875. He stood unsuccessfully for Hastings in the Conservative interest in 1865, and next year entered parliament as member for the borough of Cambridge, but failed to secure re-election at the dissolution of 1868. After the Conservative defeat of that year he was entrusted by Disraeli with the reorganization of the party machinery, and in five years of hard work he paved the way for the Conservative success at the general election of 1874. At a bye-election in 1875 he re-entered parliament as member for Chatham, which he continued to represent until 1892. He joined Sir Henry Drummond-Wolff, Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr Arthur Balfour in the “Fourth Party,” and he became solicitor-general in the administration of 1885-1886 and was knighted. On the formation of the second Salisbury administration (1886) he became under-secretary for India and in 1891 financial secretary to the Treasury. At the general election of 1892 he became member for Cambridge University. He was deputy chairman of committees in the House of Commons from 1888 to 1891, and on the formation of the third Salisbury administration in 1895 he became vice-president of the committee of the council on education (until 1902). Sir John Gorst adhered to the principles of Tory democracy which he had advocated in the days of the fourth party, and continued to exhibit an active interest in the housing of the poor, the education and care of their children, and in social questions generally, both in parliament and in the press. But he was always exceedingly “independent” in his political action. He objected to Mr Chamberlain’s proposals for tariff reform, and lost his seat at Cambridge at the general election of 1906 to a tariff reformer. He then withdrew from the vice-chancellorship of the Primrose League, of which he had been one of the founders, on the ground that it no longer represented the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. In 1910 he contested Preston as a Liberal, but failed to secure election.

His elder son, Sir J. Eldon Gorst (b. 1861), was financial adviser to the Egyptian government from 1898 to 1904, when he became assistant under-secretary of state for foreign affairs. In 1907 he succeeded Lord Cromer as British agent and consul-general in Egypt.

GORTON, SAMUEL (c. 1600-1677), English sectary and founder of the American sect of Gortonites, was born about 1600 at Gorton, Lancashire. He was first apprenticed to a clothier in London, but, fearing persecution for his religious convictions, he sailed for Boston, Massachusetts, in 1636. Constantly involved in religious disputes, he fled in turn to Plymouth, and (in 1637-1638) to Aquidneck (Newport), where he was publicly whipped for insulting the clergy and magistrates. In 1643 he bought land from the Narraganset Indians at Shawomet—now Warwick—where he was joined by a number of his followers; but he quarrelled with the Indians and the authorities at Boston sent soldiers to arrest Gorton and six of his companions. He served a term of imprisonment for heresy at Charlestown, after which he was ejected from the colony. In England in 1646 he published the curious tract “Simplicities Defence against Seven Headed Policy” (reprinted in 1835), giving an account of his grievances against the Massachusetts government. In 1648 he returned to New England with a letter of protection from the earl of Warwick, and joining his former companions at Shawomet, which he named Warwick, in honour of the earl, he remained there till his death at the end of 1677. He is chiefly remembered as the founder of a small sect called the Gortonites, which survived till the end of the 18th century. They had a great contempt for the regular clergy and for all outward forms of religion, holding that the true believers partook of the perfection of God.

GORTON, an urban district in the Gorton parliamentary division of Lancashire, England, forming an eastern suburb of Manchester. Pop. (1901) 26,564. It is largely a manufacturing district, having cotton mills and iron, engineering and chemical works.

262

GORTYNA, or Gortyn, an important ancient city on the southern side of the island of Crete. It stood on the banks of the small river Lethaeus (Mitropolipotamo), about three hours distant from the sea, with which it communicated by means of its two harbours, Metallum and Lebena. It had temples of Apollo Pythius, Artemis and Zeus. Near the town was the famous fountain of Sauros, inclosed by fruit-bearing poplars; and not far from this was another spring, overhung by an evergreen plane tree which in popular belief marked the scene of the amours of Zeus and Europa. Gortyna was, next to Cnossus, the largest and most powerful city of Crete. The two cities combined to subdue the rest of the island; but when they had gained their object they quarrelled with each other, and the history of both towns is from this time little more than a record of their feuds. Neither plays a conspicuous part in the history of Greece. Under the Romans Gortyna became the metropolis of the island. Extensive ruins may still be seen at the modern village of Hagii Deka, and here was discovered the great inscription containing chapters of its ancient laws. Though partly ruinous, the church of St Titus is a very interesting monument of early Christian architecture, dating from about the 4th century.

GÖRTZ, GEORG HEINRICH VON, Baron von Schlitz (1668-1719), Holstein statesman, was educated at Jena. He entered the Holstein-Gottorp service, and after the death of the duchess Hedwig Sophia, Charles XII.’s sister, became very influential during the minority of her son Duke Charles Frederick. His earlier policy aimed at strengthening Holstein-Gottorp at the expense of Denmark. With this object, during Charles XII.’s stay at Altranstädt (1706-1707), he tried to divert the king’s attention to the Holstein question, and six years later, when the Swedish commander, Magnus Stenbock, crossed the Elbe, Görtz rendered him as much assistance as was compatible with not openly breaking with Denmark, even going so far as to surrender the fortress of Tönning to the Swedes. Görtz next attempted to undermine the grand alliance against Sweden by negotiating with Russia, Prussia and Saxony for the purpose of isolating Denmark, or even of turning the arms of the allies against her, a task by no means impossible in view of the strained relations between Denmark and the tsar. The plan foundered, however, on the refusal of Charles XII. to save the rest of his German domains by ceding Stettin to Prussia. Another simultaneous plan of procuring the Swedish crown for Duke Charles Frederick also came to nought. Görtz first suggested the marriage between the duke of Holstein and the tsarevna Anne of Russia, and negotiations were begun in St Petersburg with that object. On the arrival of Charles XII. from Turkey at Stralsund, Görtz was the first to visit him, and emerged from his presence chief minister or “grand-vizier” as the Swedes preferred to call the bold and crafty satrap, whose absolute devotion to the Swedish king took no account of the intense wretchedness of the Swedish nation. Görtz, himself a man of uncommon audacity, seems to have been fascinated by the heroic element in Charles’s nature and was determined, if possible, to save him from his difficulties. He owed his extraordinary influence to the fact that he was the only one of Charles’s advisers who believed, or pretended to believe, that Sweden was still far from exhaustion, or at any rate had a sufficient reserve of power to give support to an energetic diplomacy—Charles’s own opinion, in fact. Görtz’s position, however, was highly peculiar. Ostensibly, he was only the Holstein minister at Charles’s court, in reality he was everything in Sweden except a Swedish subject—finance minister, plenipotentiary to foreign powers, factotum, and responsible to the king alone, though he had not a line of instructions. But he was just the man for a hero in extremities, and his whole course of procedure was, of necessity, revolutionary. His chief financial expedient was to debase, or rather ruin, the currency by issuing copper tokens redeemable in better times; but it was no fault of his that Charles XII., during his absence, flung upon the market too enormous an amount of this copper money for Görtz to deal with. By the end of 1718 it seemed as if Görtz’s system could not go on much longer, and the hatred of the Swedes towards him was so intense and universal that they blamed him for Charles XII.’s tyranny as well as for his own. Görtz hoped, however, to conclude peace with at least some of Sweden’s numerous enemies before the crash came and then, by means of fresh combinations, to restore Sweden to her rank as a great power. It must be admitted that, in pursuance of his “system,” Görtz displayed a genius for diplomacy which would have done honour to a Metternich or a Talleyrand. He desired peace with Russia first of all, and at the congress of Åland even obtained relatively favourable terms, only to have them rejected by his obstinately optimistic master. Simultaneously, Görtz was negotiating with Cardinal Alberoni and with the whigs in England; but all his ingenious combinations collapsed like a house of cards on the sudden death of Charles XII. The whole fury of the Swedish nation instantly fell upon Görtz. After a trial before a special commission which was a parody of justice—the accused was not permitted to have any legal assistance or the use of writing materials—he was condemned to decapitation and promptly executed. Perhaps Görtz deserved his fate for “unnecessarily making himself the tool of an unheard-of despotism,” but his death was certainly a judicial murder, and some historians even regard him as a political martyr.

GÖRZ (Ital. Gorizia; Slovene, Gorica), the capital of the Austrian crownland of Görz and Gradisca, about 390 m. S.W. of Vienna by rail. Pop (1900) 25,432, two-thirds Italians, the remainder mostly Slovenes and Germans. It is picturesquely situated on the left bank of the Isonzo in a fertile valley, 35 m. N.N.W. of Trieste by rail. It is the seat of an archbishop and possesses an interesting cathedral, built in the 14th century and the richly decorated church of St Ignatius, built in the 17th century by the Jesuits. On an eminence, which dominates the town, is situated the old castle, formerly the seat of the counts of Görz, now partly used as barracks. Owing to the mildness of its climate Görz has become a favourite winter-resort, and has received the name of the Nice of Austria. Its mean annual temperature is 55° F.; while the mean winter temperature is 38.7° F. It is adorned with several pretty gardens with a luxuriant southern vegetation. On a height to the N. of the town is situated the Franciscan convent of Castagnavizza, in whose chapel lie the remains of Charles X. of France (d. 1836), the last Bourbon king, of the duke of Angoulême (d. 1844), his son, and of the duke of Chambord (d. 1883). Seven miles to the north of Görz is the Monte Santo (2275 ft.), a much-frequented place on which stands a pilgrimage church. The industries include cotton and silk weaving, sugar refining, brewing, the manufacture of leather and the making of rosoglio. There is also a considerable trade in wooden work, vegetables, early fruit and wine. Görz is mentioned for the first time at the beginning of the 11th century, and received its charter as a town in 1307. During the middle ages the greater part of its population was German.

GÖRZ AND GRADISCA, a county and crownland of Austria, bounded E. by Carniola, S. by Istria, the Triestine territory and the Adriatic, W. by Italy and N. by Carinthia. It has an area of 1140 sq. m. The coast line, though extending for 25 m., does not present any harbour of importance. It is fringed by alluvial deposits and lagoons, which are for the most part of very modern formation, for as late as the 4th or 5th centuries Aquileia was a great seaport. The harbour of Grado is the only one accessible to the larger kind of coasting craft. On all sides, except towards the south-west where it unites with the Friulian lowland, it is surrounded by mountains, and about four-sixths of its area is occupied by mountains and hills. From the Julian Alps, which traverse the province in the north, the country descends in successive terraces towards the sea, and may roughly be divided into the upper highlands, the lower highlands, the hilly district and the lowlands. The principal peaks in the 263 Julian Alps are the Monte Canin (8469 ft.), the Manhart (8784 ft.), the Jalouc (8708 ft.), the Krn (7367 ft.), the Matajur (5386 ft.), and the highest peak in the whole range, the Triglav or Terglou (9394 ft.). The Julian Alps are crossed by the Predil Pass (3811 ft.), through which passes the principal road from Carinthia to the Coastland. The southern part of the province belongs to the Karst region, and here are situated the famous cascades and grottoes of Sankt Kanzian, where the river Reka begins its subterranean course. The principal river of the province is the Isonzo, which rises in the Triglav, and pursues a strange zigzag course for a distance of 78 m. before it reaches the Adriatic. At Görz the Isonzo is still 138 ft. above the sea, and it is navigable only in its lowest section, where it takes the name of the Sdobba. Its principal affluents are the Idria, the Wippach and the Torre with its tributary the Judrio, which forms for a short distance the boundary between Austria and Italy. Of special interest not only in itself but for the frequent allusions to it in classical literature is the Timavus or Timavo, which appears near Duino, and after a very short course flows into the Gulf of Trieste. In ancient times it appears, according to the well-known description of Virgil (Aen. i. 244) to have rushed from the mountain by nine separate mouths and with much noise and commotion, but at present it usually issues from only three mouths and flows quiet and still. It is strange enough, however, to see the river coming out full formed from the rock, and capable at its very source of bearing vessels on its bosom. According to a probable hypothesis it is a continuation of the above-mentioned river Reka, which is lost near Sankt Kanzian.

Agriculture, and specially viticulture, is the principal occupation of the population, and the vine is here planted not only in regular vineyards, but is introduced in long lines through the ordinary fields and carried up the hills in terraces locally called ronchi. The rearing of the silk-worm, especially in the lowlands, constitutes another great source of revenue, and furnishes the material for the only extensive industry of the country. The manufacture of silk is carried on at Görz, and in and around the village of Haidenschaft. Görz and Gradisca had in 1900 a population of 232,338, which is equivalent to 203 inhabitants per square mile. According to nationality about two-thirds were Slovenes, and the remainder Italians, with only about 2200 Germans. Almost the whole of the population (99.6%) belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. The local diet, of which the archbishop of Görz is a member ex-officio, is composed of 22 members, and the crownland sends 5 deputies to the Reichsrat at Vienna. For administrative purposes the province is divided into 4 districts and an autonomous municipality, Görz (pop. 25,432), the capital. Other principal places are Cormons (5824), Monfalcone (5536), Kirchheim (5699), Gradisca (3843) and Aquileia (2319).

Görz first appears distinctly in history about the close of the 10th century, as part of a district bestowed by the emperor Otto III. on John, patriarch of Aquileia. In the 11th century it became the seat of the Eppenstein family, who frequently bore the title of counts of Gorizia; and in the beginning of the 12th century the countship passed from them to the Lurngau family which continued to exist till the year 1500, and acquired possessions in Tirol, Carinthia, Friuli and Styria. On the death of Count Leonhard (12th April 1500) the fief reverted to the house of Habsburg. The countship of Gradisca was united with it in 1754. The province was occupied by the French in 1809, but reverted again to Austria in 1815. It formed a district of the administrative province of Trieste until 1861, when it became a separate crownland under its actual name.

GOSCHEN, GEORGE JOACHIM GOSCHEN, 1st Viscount (1831-1907), British statesman, son of William Henry Göschen, a London merchant of German extraction, was born in London on the 10th of August 1831. He was educated at Rugby under Dr Tait, and at Oriel College, Oxford, where he took a first-class in classics. He entered his father’s firm of Frühling & Göschen, of Austin Friars, in 1853, and three years later became a director of the Bank of England. His entry into public life took place in 1863, when he was returned without opposition as member for the city of London in the Liberal interest, and this was followed by his re-election, at the head of the poll, in the general election of 1865. In November of the same year he was appointed vice-president of the Board of Trade and paymaster-general, and in January 1866 he was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, with a seat in the cabinet. When Mr Gladstone became prime minister in December 1868, Mr Goschen joined the cabinet as president of the Poor Law Board, and continued to hold that office until March 1871, when he succeeded Mr Childers as first lord of the admiralty. In 1874 he was elected lord rector of the university of Aberdeen. Being sent to Cairo in 1876 as delegate for the British holders of Egyptian bonds, in order to arrange for the conversion of the debt, he succeeded in effecting an agreement with the Khedive.

In 1878 his views upon the county franchise question prevented him from voting uniformly with his party, and he informed his constituents in the city that he would not stand again at the forthcoming general election. In 1880 he was elected for Ripon, and continued to represent that constituency until the general election of 1885, when he was returned for the Eastern Division of Edinburgh. Being opposed to the extension of the franchise, he was unable to join Mr Gladstone’s government in 1880; declining the post of viceroy of India, he accepted that of special ambassador to the Porte, and was successful in settling the Montenegrin and Greek frontier questions in 1880 and 1881. He was made an ecclesiastical commissioner in 1882, and when Sir Henry Brand was raised to the peerage in 1884, the speakership of the House of Commons was offered to him, but declined. During the parliament of 1880-1885 he frequently found himself unable to concur with his party, especially as regards the extension of the franchise and questions of foreign policy; and when Mr Gladstone adopted the policy of Home Rule for Ireland, Mr Goschen followed Lord Hartington (afterwards duke of Devonshire) and became one of the most active of the Liberal Unionists. His vigorous and eloquent opposition to Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill of 1886 brought him into greater public prominence than ever, but he failed to retain his seat for Edinburgh at the election in July of that year. On the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill in December 1886, Mr Goschen, though a Liberal Unionist, accepted Lord Salisbury’s invitation to join his ministry, and became chancellor of the exchequer. Being defeated at Liverpool, 26th of January 1887, by seven votes, he was elected for St George’s, Hanover Square, on the 9th of February. His chancellorship of the exchequer during the ministry of 1886 to 1892 was rendered memorable by his successful conversion of the National Debt in 1888 (see National Debt). With that financial operation, under which the new 2¾% Consols became known as “Goschens,” his name will long be connected. Aberdeen University again conferred upon him the honour of the lord rectorship in 1888, and he received a similar honour from the University of Edinburgh in 1890. In the Unionist opposition of 1893 to 1895 Mr Goschen again took a vigorous part, his speeches both in and out of the House of Commons being remarkable for their eloquence and debating power. From 1895 to 1900 Mr Goschen was first lord of the admiralty, and in that office he earned the highest reputation for his business-like grasp of detail and his statesmanlike outlook on the naval policy of the country. He retired in 1900, and was raised to the peerage by the title of Viscount Goschen of Hawkhurst, Kent. Though retired from active politics he continued to take a great interest in public affairs; and when Mr Chamberlain started his tariff reform movement in 1903, Lord Goschen was one of the weightiest champions of free trade on the Unionist side. He died on the 7th of February 1907, being succeeded in the title by his son George Joachim (b. 1866), who was Conservative M.P. for East Grinstead from 1895 to 1900, and married a daughter of the 1st earl of Cranbrook.

In educational subjects Goschen had always taken the greatest interest, his best known, but by no means his only, contribution to popular culture being his participation in the University 264 Extension Movement; and his first efforts in parliament were devoted to advocating the abolition of religious tests and the admission of Dissenters to the universities. His published works indicate how ably he combined the wise study of economics with a practical instinct for business-like progress, without neglecting the more ideal aspects of human life. In addition to his well-known work on The Theory of the Foreign Exchanges, he published several financial and political pamphlets and addresses on educational and social subjects, among them being that on Cultivation of the Imagination, Liverpool, 1877, and that on Intellectual Interest, Aberdeen, 1888. He also wrote The Life and Times of Georg Joachim Goschen, publisher and printer of Leipzig (1903).

GOS-HAWK, i.e. goose-hawk, the Astur palumbarius of ornithologists, and the largest of the short-winged hawks used in falconry. Its English name, however, has possibly been transferred to this species from one of the long-winged hawks or true falcons, since there is no tradition of the gos-hawk, now so called, having ever been used in Europe to take geese or other large and powerful birds. The genus Astur may be readily distinguished from Falco by the smooth edges of its beak, its short wings (not reaching beyond about the middle of the tail), and its long legs and toes—though these last are stout and comparatively shorter than in the sparrow-hawks (Accipiter). In plumage the gos-hawk has a general resemblance to the peregrine falcon, and it undergoes a corresponding change as it advances from youth to maturity—the young being longitudinally streaked beneath, while the adults are transversely barred. The irides, however, are always yellow, or in old birds orange, while those of the falcons are dark brown. The sexes differ greatly in size. There can be little doubt that the gos-hawk, nowadays very rare in Britain, was once common in England, and even towards the end of the 18th century Thornton obtained a nestling in Scotland, while Irish gos-hawks were of old highly celebrated. Being strictly a woodland-bird, its disappearance may be safely connected with the disappearance of the ancient forests in Great Britain, though its destructiveness to poultry and pigeons has doubtless contributed to its present scarcity. In many parts of the continent of Europe it still abounds. It ranges eastward to China and is much valued in India. In North America it is represented by a very nearly allied species, A. atricapillus, chiefly distinguished by the closer barring of the breast. Three or four examples corresponding with this form have been obtained in Britain. A good many other species of Astur (some of them passing into Accipiter) are found in various parts of the world, but the only one that need here be mentioned is the A. novae-hollandiae of Australia, which is remarkable for its dimorphism—one form possessing the normal dark-coloured plumage of the genus and the other being perfectly white, with crimson irides. Some writers hold these two forms to be distinct species and call the dark-coloured one A. cinereus or A. raii.

GOSHEN, a division of Egypt settled by the Israelites between Jacob’s immigration and the Exodus. Its exact delimitation is a difficult problem. The name may possibly be of Semitic, or at least non-Egyptian origin, as in Palestine we meet with a district (Josh. x. 41) and a city (ib. xv. 51) of the same name. The Septuagint reads Γέσεμ Ἀραβίας in Gen. xlv. 10, and xlvi. 34, elsewhere simply Γέσεμ. In xlvi. 28 “Goshen ... the land of Goshen” are translated respectively “Heroopolis ... the land of Rameses.” This represents a late Jewish identification. Ptolemy defines “Arabia” as an Egyptian nome on the eastern border of the delta, with capital Phacussa, corresponding to the Egyptian nome Sopt and town Kesem. It is doubtful whether Phacussa be situated at the mounds of Fākūs, or at another place, Saft-el-Henneh, which suits Strabo’s description of its locality rather better. The extent of Goshen, according to the apocryphal book of Judith (i. 9, 10), included Tanis and Memphis; this is probably an overstatement. It is indeed impossible to say more than that it was a place of good pasture, on the frontier of Palestine, and fruitful in edible vegetables and in fish (Numbers xi. 5).

GOSHEN, a city and the county-seat of Elkhart county, Indiana, U.S.A., on the Elkhart river, about 95 m. E. by S. of Chicago, at an altitude of about 800 ft. Pop. (1890) 6033; (1900) 7810 (462 foreign-born); (1910) 8514. Goshen is served by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St Louis, and the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern railways, and is connected by electric railway with Warsaw and South Bend. The city has a Carnegie library, and is the seat of Goshen College (under Mennonite control), chartered as Elkhart Institute, at Elkhart, Ind., in 1895, and removed to Goshen and opened under its present name in 1903. The college includes a collegiate department, an academy, a Bible school, a normal school, a summer school and correspondence courses, and schools of business, of music and of oratory, and in 1908-1909 had 331 students, 73 of whom were in the Academy. Goshen is situated in a good farming region and is an important lumber market. There is a good water-power. Among the city’s manufactures are wagons and carriages, furniture, wooden-ware, veneering, sash and doors, ladders, lawn swings, rubber goods, flour, foundry products and agricultural machinery. The municipality owns its water works and its electric-lighting system. Goshen was first settled in 1828 and was first chartered as a city in 1868.

GOSLAR, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, romantically situated on the Gose, an affluent of the Oker, at the north foot of the Harz, 24 m. S.E. of Hildesheim and 31 m. S.W. from Brunswick, by rail. Pop. (1905) 17,817. It is surrounded by walls and is of antique appearance. Among the noteworthy buildings are the “Zwinger,” a tower with walls 23 ft. thick; the market church, in the Romanesque style, restored since its partial destruction by fire in 1844, and containing the town archives and a library in which are some of Luther’s manuscripts; the old town hall (Rathaus), possessing many interesting antiquities; the Kaiserworth (formerly the hall of the tailors’ gild and now an inn) with the statues of eight of the German emperors; and the Kaiserhaus, the oldest secular building in Germany, built by the emperor Henry III. before 1050 and often the residence of his successors. This was restored in 1867-1878 at the cost of the Prussian government, and was adorned with frescoes portraying events in German history. Other buildings of interest are:—the small chapel which is all that remains since 1820 of the old and famous cathedral of St Simon and St Jude founded by Henry III. about 1040, containing among other relics of the cathedral an old altar supposed to be that of the idol Krodo which formerly stood on the Burgberg near Neustadt-Harzburg; the church of the former Benedictine monastery of St Mary, or Neuwerk, of the 12th century, in the Romanesque style, with wall-paintings of considerable merit; and the house of the bakers’ gild now an hotel, the birthplace of Marshal Saxe. There are four Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, several schools, a natural science museum, containing a collection of Harz minerals, the Fenkner museum of antiquities and a number of small foundations. The town has equestrian statues of the emperor Frederick I. and of the German emperor William I. The population is chiefly occupied in connexion with the sulphur, copper, silver and other mines in the neighbourhood. The town has also been long noted for its beer, and possesses some small manufactures and a considerable trade in fruit.

Goslar is believed to have been founded by Henry the Fowler about 920, and when in the time of Otto the Great the mineral treasures in the neighbourhood were discovered it increased rapidly in prosperity. It was often the meeting-place of German diets, twenty-three of which are said to have been held here, and was frequently the residence of the emperors. About 1350 it joined the Hanseatic League. In the middle of the 14th century the famous Goslar statutes, a code of laws, which was adopted by many other towns, was published. The town was unsuccessfully besieged in 1625, during the Thirty Years’ War, but was taken by the Swedes in 1632 and nearly destroyed by fire. Further conflagrations in 1728 and 1780 gave a severe blow to its prosperity. It was a free town till 1802, when it 265 came into the possession of Prussia. In 1807 it was joined to Westphalia, in 1816 to Hanover and in 1866 it was, along with Hanover, re-united to Prussia.

GOSLICKI, WAWRZYNIEC (? 1533-1607), Polish bishop, better known under his Latinized name of Laurentius Grimalius Goslicius, was born about 1533. After having studied at Cracow and Padua, he entered the church, and was successively appointed bishop of Kaminietz and of Posen. Goslicki was an active man of business, was held in high estimation by his contemporaries and was frequently engaged in political affairs. It was chiefly through his influence, and through the letter he wrote to the pope against the Jesuits, that they were prevented from establishing their schools at Cracow. He was also a strenuous advocate of religious toleration in Poland. He died on the 31st of October 1607.

GOSLIN, or Gauzlinus (d. c. 886), bishop of Paris and defender of the city against the Northmen (885), was, according to some authorities, the son of Roricon II., count of Maine, according to others the natural son of the emperor Louis I. In 848 he became a monk, and entered a monastery at Reims, later he became abbot of St Denis. Like most of the prelates of his time he took a prominent part in the struggle against the Northmen, by whom he and his brother Louis were taken prisoners (858), and he was released only after paying a heavy ransom (Prudentii Trecensis episcopi Annales, ann. 858). From 855 to 867 he held intermittently, and from 867 to 881 regularly, the office of chancellor to Charles the Bald and his successors. In 883 or 884 he was elected bishop of Paris, and foreseeing the dangers to which the city was to be exposed from the attacks of the Northmen, he planned and directed the strengthening of the defences, though he also relied for security on the merits of the relics of St Germain and St Geneviève. When the attack finally came (885), the defence of the city was entrusted to him and to Odo, count of Paris, and Hugh, abbot of St Germain l’Auxerrois. The city was attacked on the 26th of November, and the struggle for the possession of the bridge (now the Pont-au-Change) lasted for two days; but Goslin repaired the destruction of the wooden tower overnight, and the Normans were obliged to give up the attempt to take the city by storm. The siege lasted for about a year longer, while the emperor Charles the Fat was in Italy. Goslin died soon after the preliminaries of the peace had been agreed on, worn out by his exertions, or killed by a pestilence which raged in the city.

GOSNOLD, BARTHOLOMEW (d. 1607), English navigator. Nothing is known of his birth, parentage or early life. In 1602, in command of the “Concord,” chartered by Sir Walter Raleigh and others, he crossed the Atlantic; coasted from what is now Maine to Martha’s Vineyard, landing at and naming Cape Cod and Elizabeth Island (now Cuttyhunk) and giving the name Martha’s Vineyard to the island now called No Man’s Land; and returned to England with a cargo of furs, sassafras and other commodities obtained in trade with the Indians about Buzzard’s Bay. In London he actively promoted the colonization of the regions he had visited and, by arousing the interest of Sir Ferdinando Gorges and other influential persons, contributed toward securing the grants of the charters to the London and Plymouth Companies in 1606. In 1606-1607 he was associated with Christopher Newport in command of the three vessels by which the first Jamestown colonists were carried to Virginia. As a member of the council he took an active share in the affairs of the colony, ably seconding the efforts of John Smith to introduce order, industry and system among the motley array of adventurers and idle “gentlemen” of which the little band was composed. He died from swamp fever on the 22nd of August 1607.

GOSPATRIC (fl. 1067), earl of Northumberland, belonged to a family which had connexions with the royal houses both of Wessex and Scotland. Before the Conquest he accompanied Tostig on a pilgrimage to Rome (1061); and at that time was a landholder in Cumberland. About 1067 he bought the earldom of Northumberland from William the Conqueror; but, repenting of his submission, fled with other Englishmen to the court of Scotland (1068). He joined the Danish army of invasion in the next year; but was afterwards able, from his possession of Bamburgh castle, to make terms with the conqueror, who left him undisturbed till 1072. The peace concluded in that year with Scotland left him at William’s mercy. He lost his earldom and took refuge in Scotland, where Malcolm seems to have provided for him.

GOSPEL (O. Eng. godspel, i.e. good news, a translation of Lat. bona annuntiatio, or evangelium, Gr. εὐαγγέλιον; cf. Goth. iu spillon, “to announce good news,” Ulfilas’ translation of the Greek, from iu, that which is good, and spellon to announce), primarily the “glad tidings” announced to the world by Jesus Christ. The word thus came to be applied to the whole body of doctrine taught by Christ and his disciples, and so to the Christian revelation generally (see Christianity); by analogy the term “gospel” is also used in other connexions as equivalent to “authoritative teaching.” In a narrower sense each of the records of the life and teaching of Christ preserved in the writings of the four “evangelists” is described as a Gospel. The many more or less imaginative lives of Christ which are not accepted by the Christian Church as canonical are known as “apocryphal gospels” (see Apocryphal Literature). The present article is concerned solely with general considerations affecting the four canonical Gospels; see for details of each, the articles under Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Four Gospels.—The disciples of Jesus proclaimed the Gospel that He was the Christ. Those to whom this message was first delivered in Jerusalem and Palestine had seen and heard Jesus, or had heard much about Him. They did not require to be told who He was. But more and more as the work of preaching and teaching extended to such as had not this knowledge, it became necessary to include in the Gospel delivered some account of the ministry of Jesus. Moreover, alike those who had followed Him during His life on earth, and all who joined themselves to them, must have felt the need of dwelling on His precepts, so that these must have been often repeated, and also in all probability from an early time grouped together according to their subjects, and so taught. For some time, probably for upwards of thirty years, both the facts of the life of Jesus and His words were only related orally. This would be in accordance with the habits of mind of the early preachers of the Gospel. Moreover, they were so absorbed in the expectation of the speedy return of Christ that they did not feel called to make provision for the instruction of subsequent generations. The Epistles of the New Testament contain no indications of the existence of any written record of the life and teaching of Christ. Tradition indicates A.D. 60-70 as the period when written accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus began to be made (see Mark, Gospel of, and Matthew, Gospel of). This may be accepted as highly probable. We cannot but suppose that at a time when the number of the original band of disciples of Jesus who survived must have been becoming noticeably smaller, and all these were advanced in life, the importance of writing down that which had been orally delivered concerning the Gospel-history must have been realized. We also 266 gather from Luke’s preface (i. 1-4) that the work of writing was undertaken in these circumstances and under the influence of this feeling, and that various records had already in consequence been made.

But do our Gospels, or any of them, in the form in which we actually have them, belong to the number of those earliest records? Or, if not, what are the relations in which they severally stand to them? These are questions which in modern criticism have been greatly debated. With a view to obtaining answers to them, it is necessary to consider the reception of the Gospels in the early Church, and also to examine and compare the Gospels themselves. Some account of the evidence supplied in these two ways must be given in the present article, so far as it is common to all four Gospels, or to three or two of them, and in the articles on the several Gospels so far as it is especial to each.

1. The Reception of the Gospels in the Early Church.—The question of the use of the Gospels and of the manner in which they were regarded during the period extending from the latter years of the 1st century to the beginning of the last quarter of the 2nd is a difficult one. There is a lack of explicit references to the Gospels;1 and many of the quotations which may be taken from them are not exact. At the same time these facts can be more or less satisfactorily accounted for by various circumstances. In the first place, it would be natural that the habits of thought of the period when the Gospel was delivered orally should have continued to exert influence even after the tradition had been committed to writing. Although documents might be known and used, they would not be regarded as the authorities for that which was independently remembered, and would not, therefore, necessarily be mentioned. Consequently, it is not strange that citations of sayings of Christ—and these are the only express citations in writings of the Subapostolic Age—should be made without the source whence they were derived being named, and (with a single exception) without any clear indication that the source was a document. The exception is in the little treatise commonly called the Epistle of Barnabas, probably composed about A.D. 130, where (c. iv. 14) the words “many are called but few chosen” are introduced by the formula “as it is written.”

For the identification, therefore, of the source or sources used we have to rely upon the amount of correspondence with our Gospels in the quotations made, and in respect to other parallelisms of statement and of expression, in these early Christian writers. The correspondence is in the main full and true as regards spirit and substance, but it is rarely complete in form. The existence of some differences of language may, however, be too readily taken to disprove derivation. Various forms of the same saying occurring in different documents, or remembered from oral tradition and through catechetical instruction, would sometimes be purposely combined. Or, again, the memory might be confused by this variety, and the verification of quotations, especially of brief ones, was difficult, not only from the comparative scarcity of the copies of books, but also because ancient books were not provided with ready means of reference to particular passages. On the whole there is clearly a presumption that where we have striking expressions which are known to us besides only in one of our Gospel-records, that particular record has been the source of it. And where there are several such coincidences the ground for the supposition that the writing in question has been used may become very strong. There is evidence of this kind, more or less clear in the several cases, that all the four Gospels were known in the first two or three decades of the 2nd century. It is fullest as to our first Gospel and, next to this one, as to our third.

After this time it becomes manifest that, as we should expect, documents were the recognized authorities for the Gospel history; but there is still some uncertainty as to the documents upon which reliance was placed, and the precise estimation in which they were severally held. This is in part at least due to the circumstance that nearly all the writings which have remained of the Christian literature belonging to the period circa A.D. 130-180 are addressed to non-Christians, and that for the most part they give only summaries of the teaching of Christ and of the facts of the Gospel, while terms that would not be understood by, and names that would not carry weight with, others than Christians are to a large extent avoided. The most important of the writings now in question are two by Justin Martyr (circa A.D. 145-160), viz. his Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho. In the former of these works he shows plainly his intention of adapting his language and reasoning to Gentile, and in the latter to Jewish, readers. In both his name for the Gospel-records is “Memoirs of the Apostles.” After a great deal of controversy there has come to be very wide agreement that he reckoned the first three Gospels among these Memoirs. In the case of the second and third there are indications, though slight ones, that he held the view of their composition and authorship which was common from the last quarter of the century onwards (see Mark, Gospel of, and Luke, Gospel of), but he has made the largest use of our first Gospel. It is also generally allowed that he was acquainted with the fourth Gospel, though some think that he used it with a certain reserve. Evidence may, however, be adduced which goes far to show that he regarded it, also, as of apostolic authority. There is a good deal of difference of opinion still as to whether Justin reckoned other sources for the Gospel-history besides our Gospels among the Apostolic Memoirs. In this connexion, however, as well as on other grounds, it is a significant fact that within twenty years or so after the death of Justin, which probably occurred circa A.D. 160, Tatian, who had been a hearer of Justin, produced a continuous narrative of the Gospel-history which received the name Diatessaron (“through four”), in the main a compilation from our four Gospels.2

Before the close of the 2nd century the four Gospels had attained a position of unique authority throughout the greater part of the Church, not different from that which they have held since, as is evident from the treatise of Irenaeus Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180; see esp. iii. i. 1 f. and x., xi.) and from other evidence only a few years later. The struggle against Gnosticism, which had been going on during the middle part of the century, had compelled the Church both to define her creed and to draw a sharper line of demarcation than heretofore between those writings whose authority she regarded as absolute and all others. The effect of this was no doubt to enhance the sense generally entertained of the value of the four Gospels. At the same time in the formal statements now made it is plainly implied that the belief expressed is no new one. And it is, indeed, difficult to suppose that agreement on this subject between different portions of the Church could have manifested itself at this time in the spontaneous manner that it does, except as the consequence of traditional feelings and convictions, which went back to the early part of the century, and which could hardly have arisen without good foundation, with respect to the special value of these works as embodiments of apostolic testimony, although all that came to be supposed in regard to their actual authorship cannot be considered proved.

2. The Internal Criticism of the Gospels.—In the middle of the 19th century an able school of critics, known as the Tübingen school, sought to show from indications in the several Gospels that they were composed well on in the 2nd century in the interests of various strongly marked parties into which the Church was supposed to have been divided by differences in regard to the Judaic and Pauline forms of Christianity. These theories are now discredited. It may on the contrary be confidently asserted with regard to the first three Gospels that the local colouring in them is predominantly Palestinian, and that they 267 show no signs of acquaintance with the questions and the circumstances of the 2nd century; and that the character even of the Fourth Gospel is not such as to justify its being placed, at furthest, much after the beginning of that century.

We turn to the literary criticism of the Gospels, where solid results have been obtained. The first three Gospels have in consequence of the large amount of similarity between them in contents, arrangement, and even in words and the forms of sentences and paragraphs, been called Synoptic Gospels. It has long been seen that, to account for this similarity, relations of interdependence between them, or of common derivation, must be supposed. And the question as to the true theory of these relations is known as the Synoptic Problem. Reference has already been made to the fact that during the greater part of the Apostolic age the Gospel history was taught orally. Now some have held that the form of this oral teaching was to a great extent a fixed one, and that it was the common source of our first three Gospels. This oral theory was for a long time the favourite one in England; it was never widely held in Germany, and in recent years the majority of English students of the Synoptic Problem have come to feel that it does not satisfactorily explain the phenomena. Not only are the resemblances too close, and their character in part not of a kind, to be thus accounted for, but even many of the differences between parallel contexts are rather such as would arise through the revision of a document than through the freedom of oral delivery.

It is now and has for many years been widely held that a document which is most nearly represented by the Gospel of Mark, or which (as some would say) was virtually identical with it, has been used in the composition of our first and third Gospels. This source has supplied the Synoptic Outline, and in the main also the narratives common to all three. Questions connected with the history of this document are treated in the article on Mark, Gospel of.

There is also a considerable amount of matter common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. It is introduced into the Synoptic Outline very differently in those two Gospels, which clearly suggests that it existed in a separate form, and was independently combined by the first and third evangelists with their other document. This common matter has also a character of its own; it consists mainly of pieces of discourse. The form in which it is given in the two Gospels is in several passages so nearly identical that we must suppose these pieces at least to have been derived immediately or ultimately from the same Greek document. In other cases there is more divergence, but in some of them this is accounted for by the consideration that in Matthew passages from the source now in question have been interwoven with parallels in the other chief common source before mentioned. There are, however, instances in which no such explanation will serve, and it is possible that our first and third evangelists may have used two documents which were not in all respects identical, but which corresponded very closely on the whole. The ultimate source of the subject matter in question, or of the most distinctive and larger part of it, was in all probability an Aramaic one, and in some parts different translations may have been used.

This second source used in the composition of Matthew and Luke has frequently been called “The Logia” in order to signify that it was a collection of the sayings and discourses of Jesus. This name has been suggested by Schleiermacher’s interpretation of Papias’ fragment on Matthew (see Matthew, Gospel of). But some have maintained that the source in question also contained a good many narratives, and in order to avoid any premature assumption as to its contents and character several recent critics have named it “Q.” It may, however, fairly be called “the Logian document,” as a convenient way of indicating the character of the greater part of the matter which our first and third evangelists have taken from it, and this designation is used in the articles on the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. The reconstruction of this document has been attempted by several critics. The arrangement of its contents can, it seems, best be learned from Luke.

3. One or two remarks may here be added as to the bearing of the results of literary criticism upon the use of the Gospels. Their effect is to lead us, especially when engaged in historical inquiries, to look beyond our Gospels to their sources, instead of treating the testimony of the Gospels severally as independent and ultimate. Nevertheless it will still appear that each Gospel has its distinct value, both historically and in regard to the moral and spiritual instruction afforded. And the fruits of much of that older study of the Gospels, which was largely employed in pointing out the special characteristics of each, will still prove serviceable.

GOSPORT, a seaport in the Fareham parliamentary division of Hampshire, England, facing Portsmouth across Portsmouth harbour, 81 m. S.W. from London by the London & Southwestern railway. Pop. of urban district of Gosport and Alverstoke (1901), 28,884. A ferry and a floating bridge connect it with Portsmouth. It is enclosed within a double line of fortifications, consisting of the old Gosport lines, and, about 3000 yds. to the east, a series of forts connected by strong lines with occasional batteries, forming part of the defence works of Portsmouth harbour. The principal buildings are the town hall and market hall, and the church of Holy Trinity, erected in the time of William III. To the south at Haslar there is a magnificent naval hospital, capable of containing 2000 patients, and adjoining it a gunboat slipway and large barracks. To the north is the Royal Clarence victualling yard, with brewery, cooperage, powder magazines, biscuit-making establishment, and storehouses for various kinds of provisions for the royal navy.

Gosport (Goseporte, Gozeport, Gosberg, Godsport) was originally included in Alverstoke manor, held in 1086 by the bishop and monks of Winchester under whom villeins farmed the land. In 1284 the monks agreed to give up Alverstoke with Gosport to the bishop, whose successors continued to hold them until the lands were taken over by the ecclesiastical commissioners. After the confiscation of the bishop’s lands in 1641, however, the manor of Alverstoke with Gosport was granted to George Withers, but reverted to the bishop at the Restoration. In the 16th century Gosport was “a little village of fishermen.” It was called a borough in 1461, when there are also traces of burgage tenure. From 1462 one bailiff was elected annually in the borough court, and government by a bailiff continued until 1682, when Gosport was included in Portsmouth borough 268 under the charter of Charles II. to that town. This was annulled in 1688, since which time there is no evidence of the election of bailiffs. With this exception no charter of incorporation is known, although by the 16th century the inhabitants held common property in the shape of tolls of the ferry. The importance of Gosport increased during the 16th and 17th centuries owing to its position at the mouth of Portsmouth harbour, and its convenience as a victualling station. For this reason also the town was particularly prosperous during the American and Peninsular Wars. About 1540 fortifications were built there for the defence of the harbour, and in the 17th century it was a garrison town under a lord-lieutenant.

GOSS, SIR JOHN (1800-1880), English composer, was born at Fareham, Hampshire, on the 27th of December 1800. He was elected a chorister of the Chapel Royal in 1811, and in 1816, on the breaking of his voice, became a pupil of Attwood. A few early compositions, some for the theatre, exist, and some glees were published before 1825. He was appointed organist of St Luke’s, Chelsea, in 1824, and in 1838 became organist of St Paul’s in succession to Attwood; he kept the post until 1872, when he resigned and was knighted. His position in the London musical world of the time was an influential one, and he did much by his teaching and criticism to encourage the study and appreciation of good music. In 1876 he was given the degree of Mus.D. at Cambridge. Though his few orchestral works have very small importance, his church music includes some fine compositions, such as the anthems “O taste and see,” “O Saviour of the world” and others. He was the last of the great English school of church composers who devoted themselves almost exclusively to church music; and in the history of the glee his is an honoured name, if only on account of his finest work in that form, the five-part glee, Ossian’s “Hymn to the sun.” He died at Brixton, London, on the 10th of May 1880.

GOSSAMER, a fine, thread like and filmy substance spun by small spiders, which is seen covering stubble fields and gorse bushes, and floating in the air in clear weather; especially in the autumn. By transference anything light, unsubstantial or flimsy is known as “gossamer.” A thin gauzy material used for trimming and millinery, resembling the “chiffon” of to-day, was formerly known as gossamer; and in the early Victorian period it was a term used in the hat trade, for silk hats of very light weight.

The word is obscure in origin, it is found in numerous forms in English, and is apparently taken from gose, goose and somere, summer. The Germans have Mädchensommer, maidens’ summer, and Altweibersommer, old women’s summer, as well as Sommerfäden, summer-threads, as equivalent to the English gossamer, the connexion apparently being that gossamer is seen most frequently in the warm days of late autumn (St Martin’s summer) when geese are also in season. Another suggestion is that the word is a corruption of gaze à Marie (gauze of Mary) through the legend that gossamer was originally the threads which fell away from the Virgin’s shroud on her assumption.

GOSSE, EDMUND (1849-  ), English poet and critic, was born in London on the 21st of September 1849, son of the zoologist P. H. Gosse. In 1867 he became an assistant in the department of printed books in the British Museum, where he remained until he became in 1875 translator to the Board of Trade. In 1904 he was appointed librarian to the House of Lords. In 1884-1890 he was Clark Lecturer in English literature at Trinity College, Cambridge. Himself a writer of literary verse of much grace, and master of a prose style admirably expressive of a wide and appreciative culture, he was conspicuous for his valuable work in bringing foreign literature home to English readers. Northern Studies (1879), a collection of essays on the literature of Holland and Scandinavia, was the outcome of a prolonged visit to those countries, and was followed by later work in the same direction. He translated Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler (1891), and, with W. Archer, The Master-Builder (1893), and in 1907 he wrote a life of Ibsen for the “Literary Lives” series. He also edited the English translation of the works of Björnson. His services to Scandinavian letters were acknowledged in 1901, when he was made a knight of the Norwegian order of St Olaf of the first class. Mr Gosse’s published volumes of verse include On Viol and Flute (1873), King Erik (1876), New Poems (1879), Firdausi in Exile (1885), In Russet and Silver (1894), Collected Poems (1896). Hypolympia, or the Gods on the Island (1901), an “ironic phantasy,” the scene of which is laid in the 20th century, though the personages are Greek gods, is written in prose, with some blank verse. His Seventeenth Century Studies (1883), Life of William Congreve (1888), The Jacobean Poets (1894), Life and Letters of Dr John Donne, Dean of St Paul’s (1899), Jeremy Taylor (1904, “English Men of Letters”), and Life of Sir Thomas Browne (1905) form a very considerable body of critical work on the English 17th-century writers. He also wrote a life of Thomas Gray, whose works he edited (4 vols., 1884); A History of Eighteenth Century Literature (1889); a History of Modern English Literature (1897), and vols. iii. and iv. of an Illustrated Record of English Literature (1903-1904) undertaken in connexion with Dr Richard Garnett. Mr Gosse was always a sympathetic student of the younger school of French and Belgian writers, some of his papers on the subject being collected as French Profiles (1905). Critical Kit-Kats (1896) contains an admirable criticism of J. M. de Heredia, reminiscences of Lord de Tabley and others. He edited Heinemann’s series of “Literature of the World” and the same publisher’s “International Library.” To the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica he contributed numerous articles, and his services as chief literary adviser in the preparation of the 10th and 11th editions incidentally testify to the high position held by him in the contemporary world of letters. In 1905 he was entertained in Paris by the leading littérateurs as a representative of English literary culture. In 1907 Mr Gosse published anonymously Father and Son, an intimate study of his own early family life. He married Ellen, daughter of Dr G. W. Epps, and had a son and two daughters.

GOSSE, PHILIP HENRY (1810-1888), English naturalist, was born at Worcester on the 6th of April 1810, his father, Thomas Gosse (1765-1844) being a miniature painter. In his youth the family settled at Poole, where Gosse’s turn for natural history was noticed and encouraged by his aunt, Mrs Bell, the mother of the zoologist, Thomas Bell (1792-1880). He had, however, little opportunity for developing it until, in 1827, he found himself clerk in a whaler’s office at Carbonear, in Newfoundland, where he beguiled the tedium of his life by observations, chiefly with the microscope. After a brief and unsuccessful interlude of farming in Canada, during which he wrote an unpublished work on the entomology of Newfoundland, he travelled in the United States, was received and noticed by men of science, was employed as a teacher for some time in Alabama, and returned to England in 1839. His Canadian Naturalist (1840), written on the voyage home, was followed in 1843 by his Introduction to Zoology. His first widely popular book was The Ocean (1844). In 1844 Gosse, who had meanwhile been teaching in London, was sent by the British Museum to collect specimens of natural history in Jamaica. He spent nearly two years on that island, and after his return published his Birds of Jamaica (1847) and his Naturalist’s Sojourn in Jamaica (1851). He also wrote about this time several zoological works for the S.P.C.K., and laboured to such an extent as to impair his health. While recovering at Ilfracombe, he was attracted by the forms of marine life so abundant on that shore, and in 1853 published A Naturalist’s Rambles on the Devonshire Coast, accompanied by a description of the marine aquarium invented by him, by means of which he succeeded in preserving zoophytes and other marine animals of the humbler grades alive and in good condition away from the sea. This arrangement was more fully set forth and illustrated in his Aquarium (1854), succeeded in 1855-1856 by A Manual of Marine Zoology, in two volumes, illustrated by nearly 700 wood engravings after the author’s drawings. A volume on the marine fauna of Tenby succeeded in 1856. In June of the same year he was elected F.R.S. Gosse, who was a most careful observer, but who 269 lacked the philosophical spirit, was now tempted to essay work of a more ambitious order, publishing in 1857 two books, Life and Omphalos, embodying his speculations on the appearance of life on the earth, which he considered to have been instantaneous, at least as regarded its higher forms. His views met with no favour from scientific men, and he returned to the field of observation, which he was better qualified to cultivate. Taking up his residence at St Marychurch, in South Devon, he produced from 1858 to 1860 his standard work on sea-anemones, the Actinologia Britannica. The Romance of Natural History and other popular works followed. In 1865 he abandoned authorship, and chiefly devoted himself to the cultivation of orchids. Study of the Rotifera, however, also engaged his attention, and his results were embodied in a monograph by Dr C. T. Hudson (1886). He died at St Marychurch on the 23rd of August 1888.

GOSSEC, FRANÇOIS JOSEPH (1734-1829), French musical composer, son of a small farmer, was born at the village of Vergnies, in Belgian Hainaut, and showing early a taste for music became a choir-boy at Antwerp. He went to Paris in 1751 and was taken up by Rameau. He became conductor of a private band kept by La Popelinière, a wealthy amateur, and gradually determined to do something to revive the study of instrumental music in France. He had his own first symphony performed in 1754, and as conductor to the Prince de Condé’s orchestra he produced several operas and other compositions of his own. He imposed his influence upon French music with remarkable success, founded the Concert des Amateurs in 1770, organized the École de Chant in 1784, was conductor of the band of the Garde Nationale at the Revolution, and was appointed (with Méhul and Cherubini) inspector of the Conservatoire de Musique when this institution was created in 1795. He was an original member of the Institute and a chevalier of the legion of honour. Outside France he was but little known, and his own numerous compositions, sacred and secular, were thrown into the shade by those of men of greater genius; but he has a place in history as the inspirer of others, and as having powerfully stimulated the revival of instrumental music. He died at Passy on the 16th of February 1829.

GOSSIP (from the O. E. godsibb, i.e. God, and sib, akin, standing in relation to), originally a god-parent, i.e. one who by taking a sponsor’s vows at a baptism stands in a spiritual relationship to the child baptized. The common modern meaning is of light personal or social conversation, or, with an invidious sense, of idle tale-bearing. “Gossip” was early used with the sense of a friend or acquaintance, either of the parent of the child baptized or of the other god-parents, and thus came to be used, with little reference to the position of sponsor, for women friends of the mother present at a birth; the transition of meaning to an idle chatterer or talker for talking’s sake is easy. The application to the idle talk of such persons does not appear to be an early one.

GOSSNER, JOHANNES EVANGELISTA (1773-1858), German divine and philanthropist, was born at Hausen near Augsburg on the 14th of December 1773, and educated at the university of Dillingen. Here like Martin Boos and others he came under the spell of the Evangelical movement promoted by Johann Michael Sailer, the professor of pastoral theology. After taking priest’s orders, Gossner held livings at Dirlewang (1804-1811) and Munich (1811-1817), but his evangelical tendencies brought about his dismissal and in 1826 he formally left the Roman Catholic for the Protestant communion. As minister of the Bethlehem church in Berlin (1829-1846) he was conspicuous not only for practical and effective preaching, but for the founding of schools, asylums and missionary agencies. He died on the 20th of March 1858.

GOSSON, STEPHEN (1554-1624), English satirist, was baptized at St George’s, Canterbury, on the 17th of April 1554. He entered Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 1572, and on leaving the university in 1576 he went to London. In 1598 Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia mentions him with Sidney, Spenser, Abraham Fraunce and others among the “best for pastorall,” but no pastorals of his are extant. He is said to have been an actor, and by his own confession he wrote plays, for he speaks of Catilines Conspiracies as a “Pig of mine own Sowe.” To this play and some others, on account of their moral intention, he extends indulgence in the general condemnation of stage plays contained in his Schoole of Abuse, containing a pleasant invective against Poets, Pipers, Plaiers, Jesters and such like Caterpillars of the Commonwealth (1579). The euphuistic style of this pamphlet and its ostentatious display of learning were in the taste of the time, and do not necessarily imply insincerity. Gosson justified his attack by considerations of the disorder which the love of melodrama and of vulgar comedy was introducing into the social life of London. It was not only by extremists like Gosson that these abuses were recognized. Spenser, in his Teares of the Muses (1591), laments the same evils, although only in general terms. The tract was dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney, who seems not unnaturally to have resented being connected with a pamphlet which opened with a comprehensive denunciation of poets, for Spenser, writing to Gabriel Harvey (Oct. 16, 1579) of the dedication, says the author “was for hys labor scorned.” He dedicated, however, a second tract, The Ephemerides of Phialo ... and A Short Apologie of the Schoole of Abuse, to Sidney on Oct. 28th, 1579. Gosson’s abuse of poets seems to have had a large share in inducing Sidney to write his Apologie for Poetrie, which probably dates from 1581. After the publication of the Schoole of Abuse Gosson retired into the country, where he acted as tutor to the sons of a gentleman (Plays Confuted. “To the Reader,” 1582). Anthony à Wood places this earlier and assigns the termination of his tutorship indirectly to his animosity against the stage, which apparently wearied his patron of his company. The publication of his polemic provoked many retorts, the most formidable of which was Thomas Lodge’s Defence of Playes (1580). The players themselves retaliated by reviving Gosson’s own plays. Gosson replied to his various opponents in 1582 by his Playes Confuted in Five Actions, dedicated to Sir Francis Walsingham. Meanwhile he had taken orders, was made lecturer of the parish church at Stepney (1585), and was presented by the queen to the rectory of Great Wigborough, Essex, which he exchanged in 1600 for St Botolph’s, Bishopsgate. He died on the 13th of February 1624. Pleasant Quippes for Upstart New-fangled Gentlewomen (1595), a coarse satiric poem, is also ascribed to Gosson.

GOT, FRANÇOIS JULES EDMOND (1822-1901), French actor, was born at Lignerolles on the 1st of October 1822, and entered the Conservatoire in 1841, winning the second prize for comedy that year and the first in 1842. After a year of military service he made his début at the Comédie Française on the 17th of July 1844, as Alexis in Les Héritiers and Mascarelles in Les Précieuses ridicules. He was immediately admitted pensionnaire, and became sociétaire in 1850. By special permission of the emperor in 1866 he played at the Odéon in Emile Augier’s Contagion. His golden jubilee at the Théâtre Français was celebrated in 1894, and he made his final appearance the year after. Got was a fine representative of the grand style of French acting, and was much admired in England as well as in Paris. He wrote the libretto of the opera François Villon (1857) and also of L’Esclave (1874). In 1881 he was decorated with the cross of the Legion of Honour.

GÖTA, a river of Sweden, draining the great Lake Vener. The name, however, is more familiar in its application to the canal which affords communication between Gothenburg and Stockholm. The river flows out of the southern extremity of the lake almost due south to the Cattegat, which it enters by two arms enclosing the island of Hisingen, the eastern forming the harbour and bearing the heavy sea-traffic of the port of 270 Gothenburg. The Göta river is 50 m. in length, and is navigable for large vessels, a series of locks surmounting the famous falls of Trollhättan (q.v.). Passing the abrupt wooded Halleberg and Hunneberg (royal shooting preserves) Lake Vener is reached at Venersborg. Several important ports lie on the north, east and south shores (see Vener). From Sjötorp, midway on the eastern shore, the western Göta canal leads S.E. to Karlsborg. Its course necessitates over twenty locks to raise it from the Vener level (144 ft.) to its extreme height of 300 ft., and lower it over the subsequent fall through the small lakes Viken and Botten to Lake Vetter (q.v.; 289 ft.), which the route crosses to Motala. The eastern canal continues eastward from this point, and a descent is followed through five locks to Lake Boren, after which the canal, carried still at a considerable elevation, overlooks a rich and beautiful plain. The picturesque Lake Roxen with its ruined castle of Stjernarp is next traversed. At Norsholm a branch canal connects Lake Glan to the north, giving access to the important manufacturing centre of Norrköping. Passing Lake Asplången, the canal follows a cut through steep rocks, and then resumes an elevated course to the old town of Söderköping, after which the Baltic is reached at Mem. Vessels plying to Stockholm run N.E. among the coastal island-fringe (skärgård), and then follow the Södertelge canal into Lake Mälar. The whole distance from Gothenburg to Stockholm is about 360 m., and the voyage takes about 2½ days. The length of artificial work on the Göta canal proper is 54 m., and there are 58 locks. The scenery is not such as will bear adverse weather conditions; that of the western canal is without any interest save in the remarkable engineering work. The idea of a canal dates from 1516, but the construction was organized by Baron von Platten and engineered by Thomas Telford in 1810-1832. The falls of Trollhättan had already been locked successfully in 1800.

GOTARZES, or Goterzes, king of Parthia (c. A.D. 42-51). In an inscription at the foot of the rock of Behistun1 he is called Γωτάρζης Γεόποθρος, i.e. “son of Gēw,” and seems to be designated as “satrap of satrap.” This inscription therefore probably dates from the reign of Artabanus II. (A.D. 10-40), to whose family Gotarzes must have belonged. From a very barbarous coin of Gotarzes with the inscription βασιλεως βασιλεων Αρσανοζ υος κεκαλουμενος Αρταβανου Γωτερζης (Wroth, Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia, p. 165; Numism. Chron., 1900, p. 95; the earlier readings of this inscription are wrong), which must be translated “king of kings Arsakes, named son of Artabanos, Gotarzes,” it appears that he was adopted by Artabanus. When the troublesome reign of Artabanus II. ended in A.D. 39 or 40, he was succeeded by Vardanes, probably his son; but against him in 41 rose Gotarzes (the dates are fixed by the coins). He soon made himself detested by his cruelty—among many other murders he even slew his brother Artabanus and his whole family (Tac. Ann. xi. 8)—and Vardanes regained the throne in 42; Gotarzes fled to Hyrcania and gathered an army from the Dahan nomads. The war between the two kings was at last ended by a treaty, as both were afraid of the conspiracies of their nobles. Gotarzes returned to Hyrcania. But when Vardanes was assassinated in 45, Gotarzes was acknowledged in the whole empire (Tac. Ann. xi. 9 ff.; Joseph. Antiq. xx. 3, 4, where Gotarzes is called Kotardes). He now takes on his coins the usual Parthian titles, “king of kings Arsaces the benefactor, the just, the illustrious (Epiphanes), the friend of the Greeks (Philhellen),” without mentioning his proper name. The discontent excited by his cruelty and luxury induced the hostile party to apply to the emperor Claudius and fetch from Rome an Arsacid prince Meherdates (i.e. Mithradates), who lived there as hostage. He crossed the Euphrates in 49, but was beaten and taken prisoner by Gotarzes, who cut off his ears (Tac. Ann. xii. 10 ff.). Soon after Gotarzes died, according to Tacitus, of an illness; Josephus says that he was murdered. His last coin is dated from June 51.

GOTHA, a town of Germany, alternately with Coburg the residence of the dukes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in a pleasant situation on the Leine canal, 6 m. N. of the slope of the Thuringian forest, 17 m. W. from Erfurt, on the railway to Bebra-Cassel. Pop. (1905) 36,906. It consists of an old inner town and encircling suburbs, and is dominated by the castle of Friedenstein, lying on the Schlossberg at an elevation of 1100 ft. With the exception of those in the older portion of the town, the streets are handsome and spacious, and the beautiful gardens and promenades between the suburbs and the castle add greatly to the town’s attractiveness. To the south of the castle there is an extensive and finely adorned park. To the north-west of the town the Galberg—on which there is a public pleasure garden—and to the south-west the Seeberg rise to a height of over 1300 ft. and afford extensive views. The castle of Friedenstein, begun by Ernest the Pious, duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, in 1643 and completed in 1654, occupies the site of the old fortress of Grimmenstein. It is a huge square building flanked with two wings, having towers rising to the height of about 140 ft. It contains the ducal cabinet of coins and the ducal library of nearly 200,000 volumes, among which are several rare editions and about 6900 manuscripts. The picture gallery, the cabinet of engravings, the natural history museum, the Chinese museum, and the cabinet of art, which includes a collection of Egyptian, Etruscan, Roman and German antiquities, are now included in the new museum, completed in 1878, which stands on a terrace to the south of the castle. The principal other public buildings are the church of St Margaret with a beautiful portal and a lofty tower, founded in the 12th century, twice burnt down, and rebuilt in its present form in 1652; the church of the Augustinian convent, with an altar-piece by the painter Simon Jacobs; the theatre; the fire insurance bank and the life insurance bank; the ducal palace, in the Italian villa style, with a winter garden and picture gallery; the buildings of the ducal legislature; the hospital; the old town-hall, dating from the 11th century; the old residence of the painter Lucas Cranach, now used as a girls’ school; the ducal stable; and the Friedrichsthal palace, now used as public offices. The educational establishments include a gymnasium (founded in 1524, one of the most famous in Germany), two training schools for teachers, conservatoires of music and several scientific institutions. Gotha is remarkable for its insurance societies and for the support it has given to cremation. The crematorium was long regarded as a model for such establishments.

Gotha is one of the most active commercial towns of Thuringia, its manufactures including sausages, for which it has a great reputation, porcelain, tobacco, sugar, machinery, mechanical and surgical instruments, musical instruments, shoes, lamps and toys. There are also a number of nurseries and market gardens. The book trade is represented by about a dozen firms, including that of the great geographical house of Justus Perthes, founded in 1785.

Gotha (in old chronicles called Gotegewe and later Gotaha) existed as a village in the time of Charlemagne. In 930 its lord Gothard abbot of Hersfeld surrounded it with walls. It was known as a town as early as 1200, about which time it came into the possession of the landgraves of Thuringia. On the extinction of that line Gotha came into the possession of the electors of Saxony, and it fell later to the Ernestine line of dukes. After the battle of Mühlberg in 1547 the castle of Grimmenstein was partly destroyed, but it was again restored in 1554. In 1567 the town was taken from Duke John Frederick by the elector Augustus of Saxony. After the death of John Frederick’s sons, it came into the possession of Duke Ernest the Pious, the founder of the line of the dukes of Gotha; and on the extinction of this family it was united in 1825 along with the dukedom to Coburg.

271

GOTHAM, WISE MEN OF, the early name given to the people of the village of Gotham, Nottingham, in allusion to their reputed simplicity. But if tradition is to be believed the Gothamites were not so very simple. The story is that King John intended to live in the neighbourhood, but that the villagers, foreseeing ruin as the cost of supporting the court, feigned imbecility when the royal messengers arrived. Wherever the latter went they saw the rustics engaged in some absurd task. John, on this report, determined to have his hunting lodge elsewhere, and the “wise men” boasted, “we ween there are more fools pass through Gotham than remain in it.” The “foles of Gotham” are mentioned as early as the 15th century in the Towneley Mysteries; and a collection of their “jests” was published in the 16th century under the title Merrie Tales of the Mad Men of Gotham, gathered together by A.B., of Phisicke Doctour. The “A.B.” was supposed to represent Andrew Borde or Boorde (1490?-1549), famous among other things for his wit, but he probably had nothing to do with the compilation. As typical of the Gothamite folly is usually quoted the story of the villagers joining hands round a thornbush to shut in a cuckoo so that it would sing all the year. The localizing of fools is common to most countries, and there are many other reputed “imbecile” centres in England besides Gotham. Thus there are the people of Coggeshall, Essex, the “carles of Austwick,” Yorkshire, “the gowks of Gordon,” Berwickshire, and for many centuries the charge of folly has been made against “silly” Suffolk and Norfolk (Descriptio Norfolciensium about 12th century, printed in Wright’s Early Mysteries and other Latin Poems). In Germany there are the Schildburgers, in Holland the people of Kampen. Among the ancient Greeks Boeotia was the home of fools; among the Thracians, Abdera; among the ancient Jews, Nazareth.

GOTHENBURG (Swed. Göteborg), a city and seaport of Sweden, on the river Göta, 5 m. above its mouth in the Cattegat, 285 m. S.W. of Stockholm by rail, and 360 by the Göta canal-route. Pop. (1900) 130,619. It is the chief town of the district (län) of Göteborg och Bohus, and the seat of a bishop. It lies on the east or left bank of the river, which is here lined with quays on both sides, those on the west belonging to the large island of Hisingen, contained between arms of the Göta. On this island are situated the considerable suburbs of Lindholmen and Lundby.

The city itself stretches east and south from the river, with extensive and pleasant residential suburbs, over a wooded plain enclosed by low hills. The inner city, including the business quarter, is contained almost entirely between the river and the Rosenlunds canal, continued in the Vallgraf, the moat of the old fortifications; and is crossed by the Storahamn, Östrahamn and Vestrahamn canals. The Storahamn is flanked by the handsome tree-planted quays, Norra and Södra Hamngatan. The first of these, starting from the Stora Bommenshamn, where the sea-going passenger-steamers lie, leads past the museum to the Gustaf-Adolfs-Torg. The museum, in the old East India Company’s house, has fine collections in natural history, entomology, botany, anatomy, archaeology and ethnography, a picture and sculpture gallery, and exhibits of coins and industrial art. Gustaf-Adolfs-Torg is the business centre, and contains the town-hail (1670) and exchange (1849). Here are statues by B. E. Fogelberg of Gustavus Adolphus and of Odin, and of Oscar I. by J. P. Molin. Among several churches in this quarter of the city is the cathedral (Gustavii Domkyrka), a cruciform church founded in 1633 and rebuilt after fires in 1742 and 1815. Here are also the customs-house and residence of the governor of the län. On the north side, closely adjacent, are the Lilla Bommenshamn, where the Göta canal steamers lie, and the two principal railway stations, Statens and Bergslafs Bangård. Above the Rosenlunds canal rises a low, rocky eminence, Lilla Otterhälleberg. The inner city is girdled on the south and east by the Kungspark, which contains Molin’s famous group of statuary, the Belt-bucklers (Bältespännare), and by the beautiful gardens of the Horticultural Society (Trädgårdsforeningen). These grounds are traversed by the broad Nya Allé, a favourite promenade, and beyond them lies the best residential quarter, the first houses facing Vasa Street, Vasa Park and Kungsport Avenue. At the north end of the last are the university and the New theatre. At the west end of Vasa Street is the city library, the most important in the country except the royal library at Stockholm and the university libraries at Upsala and Lund. The suburbs are extensive. To the south-west are Majorna and Masthugget, with numerous factories. Beyond these lie the fine Slottskog Park, planted with oaks, and picturesquely broken by rocky hills commanding views of the busy river and the city. The suburb of Annedal is the workmen’s quarter; others are Landala, Garda and Stampen. All are connected with the city by electric tramways. Six railways leave the city from four stations. The principal lines, from the Statens and Bergslafs stations, run N. to Trollhättan, and into Norway (Christiania); N.E. between Lakes Vener and Vetter to Stockholm, Falun and the north; E. to Borås and beyond, and S. by the coast to Helsingborg, &c. From the Vestgöta station a narrow-gauge line runs N.E. to Skara and the southern shores of Vener, and from Sarö station near Slottskog Park a line serves Sarö, a seaside watering-place on an island 20 m. S. of Gothenburg.

The city has numerous important educational establishments. The university (Högskola) was a private foundation (1891), but is governed by a board, the members of which are nominated by the state, the town council, Royal Society of Science and Literature, directors of the museum, and the staffs of the various local colleges. There are several boys’ schools, a college for girls, a scientific college, a commercial college (1826), a school of navigation, and Chalmers’ Polytechnical College, founded by William Chalmers (1748-1811), a native of Gothenburg of English parentage. He bequeathed half his fortune to this institution, and the remainder to the Sahlgrenska hospital. A people’s library was founded by members of the family of Dickson, several of whom have taken a prominent part in philanthropical works in the city. The connexion of the family with Gothenburg dates from 1802, when Robert Dickson, a native of Montrose in Scotland, founded the business in which he was joined in 1807 by his brother James.

In respect of industry and commerce as a whole Gothenburg ranks as second to Stockholm in the kingdom; but it is actually the principal centre of export trade and port of register; and as a manufacturing town it is slightly inferior to Malmö. Its principal industrial establishments are mechanical works (both in the city and at Lundby), saw-mills, dealing with the timber which is brought down the Göta, flour-mills, margarine factories, breweries and distilleries, tobacco works, cotton mills, dyeing and bleaching works (at Levanten in the vicinity), furniture factories, paper and leather works, and shipbuilding yards. The vessels registered at the port in 1901 were 247 of 120,488 tons. There are about 3 m. of quays approachable by vessels drawing 20 ft., and slips for the accommodation of large vessels. Gothenburg is the principal port of embarkation of Swedish emigrants for America.

The city is governed by a council including two mayors, and returns nine members to the second chamber of the Riksdag (parliament).

Founded by Gustavus Adolphus in 1619, Gothenburg was from the first designed to be fortified, a town of the same name founded on Hisingen in 1603 having been destroyed by the Danes during the Calmar war. From 1621, when it was first chartered, it steadily increased, though it suffered greatly in the Danish wars of the last half of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries, and from several extensive conflagrations (the last in 1813), which have destroyed important records of its history. The great development of its herring fishery in the latter part 272 of the 18th century gave a new impulse to the city’s trade, which was kept up by the influence of the “Continental System,” under which Gothenburg became a depot for the colonial merchandise of England. After the fall of Napoleon it began to decline, but after its closer connexion with the interior of the country by the Göta canal (opened 1832) and Western railway it rapidly advanced both in population and trade. Since the demolition of its fortifications in 1807, it has been defended only by some small forts. Gothenburg was the birthplace of the poet Bengt Lidner (1757-1793) and two of Sweden’s greatest sculptors, Bengt Erland Fogelberg (1786-1854) and Johann Peter Molin (1814-1873). After the French Revolution Gothenburg was for a time the residence of the Bourbon family. The name of this city is associated with the municipal licensing system known as the Gothenburg System (see Liquor Laws).

GOTHIC, the term generally applied to medieval architecture, and more especially to that in which the pointed arch appears. The style was at one time supposed to have originated with the warlike people known as the Goths, some of whom (the East Goths, or Ostrogoths) settled in the eastern portion of Europe, and others (the West Goths, or Visigoths) in the Asturias of Spain; but as no buildings or remains of any description have ever been found, in which there are any traces of an independent construction in either brick or stone, the title is misleading; since, however, it is now so generally accepted it would be difficult to change it. The term when first employed was one of reproach, as Evelyn (1702) when speaking of the faultless building (i.e. classic) says, “they were demolished by the Goths or Vandals, who introduced their own licentious style now called modern or Gothic.” The employment of the pointed arch in Syria, Egypt and Sicily from the 8th century onwards by the Mahommedans for their mosques and gateways, some four centuries before it made its appearance in Europe, also makes it advisable to adhere to the old term Gothic in preference to Pointed Architecture. (See Architecture)

GÖTHITE, or Goethite, a mineral composed of an iron hydrate, Fe2O3·H2O, crystallizing in the orthorhombic system and isomorphous with diaspore and manganite (q.v.). It was first noticed in 1789, and in 1806 was named after the poet Goethe. Crystals are prismatic, acicular or scaly in habit; they have a perfect cleavage parallel to the brachypinacoid (M in the figure). Reniform and stalactitic masses with a radiated fibrous structure also occur. The colour varies from yellowish or reddish to blackish-brown, and by transmitted light it is often blood-red; the streak is brownish-yellow; hardness, 5; specific gravity, 4.3. The best crystals are the brilliant, blackish-brown prisms with terminal pyramidal planes (fig.) from the Restormel iron mines at Lostwithiel, and the Botallack mine at St Just in Cornwall. A variety occurring as thin red scales at Siegen in Westphalia is known as Rubinglimmer or pyrrhosiderite (from Gr. πυρρός, flame-coloured, and σίδηρος, iron): a scaly-fibrous variety from the same locality is called lepidocrocite (from λεπίς, scale, and κροκίς, fibre). Sammetblende or przibramite is a variety, from Przibram in Bohemia, consisting of delicate acicular or capillary crystals arranged in radiating groups with a velvety surface and yellow colour.

Göthite occurs with other iron oxides, especially limonite and hematite, and when found in sufficient quantity is mined with these as an ore of iron. It often occurs also as an enclosure in other minerals. Acicular crystals, resembling rutile in appearance, sometimes penetrate crystals of pale-coloured amethyst, for instance, at Wolf’s Island in Lake Onega in Russia: this form of the mineral has long been known as onegite, and the crystals enclosing it are cut for ornamental purposes under the name of “Cupid’s darts” (flèches d’amour). The metallic glitter of avanturine or sun-stone (q.v.) is due to the enclosed scales of göthite and certain other minerals.

GOTHS (Gotones, later Gothis), a Teutonic people who in the 1st century of the Christian era appear to have inhabited the middle part of the basin of the Vistula. They were probably the easternmost of the Teutonic peoples. Early history. According to their own traditions as recorded by Jordanes, they had come originally from the island Scandza, i.e. Skåne or Sweden, under the leadership of a king named Berig, and landed first in a region called Gothiscandza. Thence they invaded the territories of the Ulmerugi (the Holmryge of Anglo-Saxon tradition), probably in the neighbourhood of Rügenwalde in eastern Pomerania, and conquered both them and the neighbouring Vandals. Under their sixth king Filimer they migrated into Scythia and settled in a district which they called Oium. The rest of their early history, as it is given by Jordanes following Cassiodorus, is due to an erroneous identification of the Goths with the Getae, and ancient Thracian people.

The credibility of the story of the migration from Sweden has been much discussed by modern authors. The legend was not peculiar to the Goths, similar traditions being current among the Langobardi, the Burgundians, and apparently several other Teutonic nations. It has been observed with truth that so many populous nations can hardly have sprung from the Scandinavian peninsula; on the other hand, the existence of these traditions certainly requires some explanation. Possibly, however, many of the royal families may have contained an element of Scandinavian blood, a hypothesis which would well accord with the social conditions of the migration period, as illustrated, e.g., in Völsunga Saga and in Hervarar Saga ok Heiðreks Konungs. In the case of the Goths a connexion with Gotland is not unlikely, since it is clear from archaeological evidence that this island had an extensive trade with the coasts about the mouth of the Vistula in early times. If, however, there was any migration at all, one would rather have expected it to have taken place in the reverse direction. For the origin of the Goths can hardly be separated from that of the Vandals, whom according to Procopius they resembled in language and in all other respects. Moreover the Gepidae, another Teutonic people, who are said to have formerly inhabited the delta of the Vistula, also appear to have been closely connected with the Goths. According to Jordanes they participated in the migration from Scandza.

Apart from a doubtful reference by Pliny to a statement of the early traveller Pytheas, the first notices we have of the Goths go back to the first years of the Christian era, at which time they seem to have been subject to the Marcomannic king Maroboduus. They do not enter into Roman history, however, until after the beginning of the 3rd century, at which time they appear to have come in conflict with the emperor Caracalla. During this century their frontier seems to have been advanced considerably farther south, and the whole country as far as the lower Danube was frequently ravaged by them. The emperor Gordianus is called “victor Gothorum” by Capitolinus, though we have no record of the ground for the claim, and further conflicts are recorded with his successors, one of whom, Decius, was slain by the Goths in Moesia. According to Jordanes the kings of the Goths during these campaigns were Ostrogotha and afterwards Cniva, the former of whom is praised also in the Anglo-Saxon poem Widsith. The emperor Gallus was forced to pay tribute to the Goths. By this time they had reached the coasts of the Black Sea, and during the next twenty years they frequently ravaged the maritime regions of Asia Minor and Greece. Aurelian is said to have won a victory over them, but the province of Dacia had to be given up. In the time of Constantine the Great Thrace and Moesia were again plundered by the Goths, A.D. 321. Constantine drove them back and concluded peace with their king Ariaric in 336. From the end of the 3rd century we hear of subdivisions of the nation called Greutungi, Teruingi, Austrogothi (Ostrogothi), Visigothi, Taifali, though it is not clear whether these were all distinct.

Though by this time the Goths had extended their territories 273 far to the south and east, it must not be assumed that they had evacuated their old lands on the Vistula. Jordanes records several traditions of their conflicts with other Teutonic tribes, in particular a victory won by Ostrogotha over Fastida, king of the Gepidae, and another by Geberic over Visimar, king of the Vandals, about the end of Constantine’s reign, in consequence of which the Vandals sought and obtained permission to settle in Pannonia. Geberic was succeeded by the most famous of the Gothic kings, Hermanaric (Eormenric, Iörmunrekr), whose deeds are recorded in the traditions of all Teutonic nations. According to Jordanes he conquered the Heruli, the Aestii, the Venedi, and a number of other tribes who seem to have been settled in the southern part of Russia. From Anglo-Saxon sources it seems probable that his supremacy reached westwards as far as Holstein. He was of a cruel disposition, and is said to have killed his nephews Embrica (Emerca) and Fritla (Fridla) in order to obtain the great treasure which they possessed. Still more famous is the story of Suanihilda (Svanhildr), who according to Northern tradition was his wife and was cruelly put to death on a false charge of unfaithfulness. An attempt to avenge her death was made by her brothers Ammius (Hamðir) and Sarus (Sörli) by whom Hermanaric was severely wounded. To his time belong a number of other heroes whose exploits are recorded in English and Northern tradition, amongst whom we may mention Wudga (Vidigoia), Hama and several others, who in Widsith are represented as defending their country against the Huns in the forest of the Vistula. Hermanaric committed suicide in his distress at an invasion of the Huns about A.D. 370, and the portion of the nation called Ostrogoths then came under Hunnish supremacy. The Visigoths obtained permission to cross the Danube and settle in Moesia. A large part of the nation became Christian about this time (see below). The exactions of the Roman governors, however, soon led to a quarrel, which ended in the total defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople in the year 378.

From about 370 the history of the East and West Goths parts asunder, to be joined together again only incidentally and for a season. The great mass of the East Goths stayed north of the Danube, and passed under the Later history. overlordship of the Hun. They do not for the present play any important part in the affairs of the Empire. The great mass of the West Goths crossed the Danube into the Roman provinces, and there played a most important part in various characters of alliance and enmity. The great migration was in 376, when they were allowed to pass as peaceful settlers under their chief Frithigern. His rival Athanaric seems to have tried to maintain his party for a while north of the Danube in defiance of the Huns; but he had presently to follow the example of the great mass of the nation. The peaceful designs of Frithigern were meanwhile thwarted by the ill-treatment which the Goths suffered from the Roman officials, which led first to disputes and then to open war. In 378 the Goths won the great battle of Adrianople, and after this Theodosius the Great, the successor of Valens, made terms with them in 381, and the mass of the Gothic warriors entered the Roman service as foederati. Many of their chiefs were in high favour; but it seems that the orthodox Theodosius showed more favour to the still remaining heathen party among the Goths than to the larger part of them who had embraced Arian Christianity. Athanaric himself came to Constantinople in 381; he was received with high honours, and had a solemn funeral when he died. His saying is worth recording, as an example of the effect which Roman civilization had on the Teutonic mind. “The emperor,” he said, “was a god upon earth, and he who resisted him would have his blood on his own head.”

The death of Theodosius in 395 broke up the union between the West Goths and the Empire. Dissensions arose between them and the ministers of Arcadius; the Goths threw off their allegiance, and chose Alaric as their king. This was a restoration alike of national unity and of national independence. The royal title had not been borne by their leaders in the Roman service. Alaric’s position is quite different from that of several Goths in the Roman service, who appear as simple rebels. He was of the great West Gothic house of the Balthi, or Bold-men, a house second in nobility only to that of the Amali. His whole career was taken up with marchings to and fro within the lands, first of the Eastern, then of the Western empire. The Goths are under him an independent people under a national king; their independence is in no way interfered with if the Gothic king, in a moment of peace, accepts the office and titles of a Roman general. But under Alaric the Goths make no lasting settlement. In the long tale of intrigue and warfare between the Goths and the two imperial courts which fills up this whole time, cessions of territory are offered to the Goths, provinces are occupied by them, but as yet they do not take root anywhere; no Western land as yet becomes Gothia. Alaric’s designs of settlement seem in his first stage to have still kept east of the Adriatic, in Illyricum, possibly in Greece. Towards the end of his career his eyes seem fixed on Africa.

Greece was the scene of his great campaign in 395-96, the second Gothic invasion of that country. In this campaign the religious position of the Goths is strongly marked. The Arian appeared as an enemy alike to the pagan majority and the Catholic minority; but he came surrounded by monks, and his chief wrath was directed against the heathen temples (vide G. F. Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands, iii. 391). His Italian campaigns fall into two great divisions, that of 402-3, when he was driven back by Stilicho, and that of 408-10, after Stilicho’s death. In this second war he thrice besieged Rome (408, 409, 410). The second time it suited a momentary policy to set up a puppet emperor of his own, and even to accept a military commission from him. The third time he sacked the city, the first time since Brennus that Rome had been taken by an army of utter foreigners. The intricate political and military details of these campaigns are of less importance in the history of the Gothic nation than the stage which Alaric’s reign marks in the history of that nation. It stands between two periods of settlement within the Empire and of service under the Empire. Under Alaric there is no settlement, and service is quite secondary and precarious; after his death in 410 the two begin again in new shapes.

Contemporary with the campaigns of Alaric was a barbarian invasion of Italy, which, according to one view, again brings the East and West Goths together. The great mass of the East Goths, as has been already said, became one of the many nations which were under vassalage to the Huns; but their relation was one merely of vassalage. They remained a distinct people under kings of their own, kings of the house of the Amali and of the kindred of Ermanaric (Jordanes, 48). They had to follow the lead of the Huns in war, but they were also able to carry on wars of their own; and it has been held that among these separate East Gothic enterprises we are to place the invasion of Italy in 405 by Radagaisus (whom R. Pallmann1 writes Ratiger, and takes him for the chief of the heathen part of the East Goths). One chronicler, Prosper, makes this invasion preceded by another in 400, in which Alaric and Radagaisus appear as partners. The paganism of Radagaisus is certain. The presence of Goths in his army is certain, but it seems dangerous to infer that his invasion was a national Gothic enterprise.

Under Ataulphus, the brother-in-law and successor of Alaric, another era opens, the beginning of enterprises which did in the end lead to the establishment of a settled Gothic monarchy in the West. The position of Ataulphus is well marked by the speech put into his mouth by Orosius. He had at one time dreamed of destroying the Roman power, of turning Romania into Gothia, and putting Ataulphus in the stead of Augustus; but he had learned that the world could be governed only by the laws of Rome and he had determined to use the Gothic arms for the support of the Roman power. And in the confused and contradictory accounts of his actions (for the story in Jordanes cannot be reconciled with the accounts in Olympiodorus and the chroniclers), we can see something of this principle at work throughout. Gaul and Spain were overrun both by barbarian 274 invaders and by rival emperors. The sword of the Goth was to win back the last lands for Rome. And, amid many shiftings of allegiance, Ataulphus seems never to have wholly given up the position of an ally of the Empire. His marriage with Placidia, the daughter of the great Theodosius, was taken as the seal of the union between Goth and Roman, and, had their son Theodosius lived, a dynasty might have arisen uniting both claims. But the career of Ataulphus was cut short at Barcelona in 415, by his murder at the hands of another faction of the Goths. The reign of Sigeric was momentary. Under Wallia in 418 a more settled state of things was established. The Empire received again, as the prize of Gothic victories, the Tarraconensis in Spain, and Novempopulana and the Narbonensis in Gaul. The “second Aquitaine,” with the sea-coast from the mouth of the Garonne to the mouth of the Loire, became the West Gothic kingdom of Toulouse. The dominion of the Goths was now strictly Gaulish; their lasting Spanish dominion does not yet begin.

The reign of the first West Gothic Theodoric (419-451) shows a shifting state of relations between the Roman and Gothic powers; but, after defeats and successes both ways, the older relation of alliance against common enemies was again established. At last Goth and Roman had to join together against the common enemy of Europe and Christendom, Attila the Hun. But they met Gothic warriors in his army. By the terms of their subjection to the Huns, the East Goths came to fight for Attila against Christendom at Châlons, just as the Servians came to fight for Bajazet against Christendom at Nicopolis. Theodoric fell in the battle (451). After this momentary meeting, the history of the East and West Goths again separates for a while. The kingdom of Toulouse grew within Gaul at the expense of the Empire, and in Spain at the expense of the Suevi. Under Euric (466-485) the West Gothic power again became largely a Spanish power. The kingdom of Toulouse took in nearly all Gaul south of the Loire and west of the Rhône, with all Spain, except the north-west corner, which was still held by the Suevi. Provence alone remained to the Empire. The West Gothic kings largely adopted Roman manners and culture; but, as they still kept to their original Arian creed, their rule never became thoroughly acceptable to their Catholic subjects. They stood, therefore, at a great disadvantage when a new and aggressive Catholic power appeared in Gaul through the conversion of the Frank Clovis or Chlodwig. Toulouse was, as in days long after, the seat of an heretical power, against which the forces of northern Gaul marched as on a crusade. In 507 the West Gothic king Alaric II. fell before the Frankish arms at Campus Vogladensis, near Poitiers, and his kingdom, as a great power north of the Alps, fell with him. That Spain and a fragment of Gaul still remained to form a West Gothic kingdom was owing to the intervention of the East Goths under the rule of the greatest man in Gothic history.

When the Hunnish power broke in pieces on the death of Attila, the East Goths recovered their full independence. They now entered into relations with the Empire, and were settled on lands in Pannonia. During the greater part of the latter half of the 5th century, the East Goths play in south-eastern Europe nearly the same part which the West Goths played in the century before. They are seen going to and fro, in every conceivable relation of friendship and enmity with the Eastern Roman power, till, just as the West Goths had done before them, they pass from the East to the West. They are still ruled by kings of the house of the Amali, and from that house there now steps forward a great figure, famous alike in history and in romance, in the person of Theodoric, son of Theodemir. Born about 454, his childhood was spent at Constantinople as a hostage, where he was carefully educated. The early part of his life is taken up with various disputes, intrigues and wars within the Eastern empire, in which he has as his rival another Theodoric, son of Triarius, and surnamed Strabo. This older but lesser Theodoric seems to have been the chief, not the king, of that branch of the East Goths which had settled within the Empire at an earlier time. Theodoric the Great, as he is sometimes distinguished, is sometimes the friend, sometimes the enemy, of the Empire. In the former case he is clothed with various Roman titles and offices, as patrician and consul; but in all cases alike he remains the national East Gothic king. It was in both characters together that he set out in 488, by commission from the emperor Zeno, to recover Italy from Odoacer. By 493 Ravenna was taken; Odoacer was killed by Theodoric’s own hand; and the East Gothic power was fully established over Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia and the lands to the north of Italy. In this war the history of the East and West Goths begins again to unite, if we may accept the witness of one writer that Theodoric was helped by West Gothic auxiliaries. The two branches of the nation were soon brought much more closely together, when, through the overthrow of the West Gothic kingdom of Toulouse, the power of Theodoric was practically extended over a large part of Gaul and over nearly the whole of Spain. A time of confusion followed the fall of Alaric II., and, as that prince was the son-in-law of Theodoric, the East Gothic king stepped in as the guardian of his grandson Amalaric, and preserved for him all his Spanish and a fragment of his Gaulish dominion. Toulouse passed away to the Frank; but the Goth kept Narbonne and its district, the land of Septimania—the land which, as the last part of Gaul held by the Goths, kept the name of Gothia for many ages. While Theodoric lived, the West Gothic kingdom was practically united to his own dominion. He seems also to have claimed a kind of protectorate over the Teutonic powers generally, and indeed to have practically exercised it, except in the case of the Franks.

The East Gothic dominion was now again as great in extent and far more splendid than it could have been in the time of Ermanaric. But it was now of a wholly different character. The dominion of Theodoric was not a barbarian but a civilized power. His twofold position ran through everything. He was at once national king of the Goths, and successor, though without any imperial titles, of the Roman emperors of the West. The two nations, differing in manners, language and religion, lived side by side on the soil of Italy; each was ruled according to its own law, by the prince who was, in his two separate characters, the common sovereign of both. The picture of Theodoric’s rule is drawn for us in the state papers drawn up in his name and in the names of his successors by his Roman minister Cassiodorus. The Goths seem to have been thick on the ground in northern Italy; in the south they formed little more than garrisons. In Theodoric’s theory the Goth was the armed protector of the peaceful Roman; the Gothic king had the toil of government, while the Roman consul had the honour. All the forms of the Roman administration went on, and the Roman polity and Roman culture had great influence on the Goths themselves. The rule of the prince over two distinct nations in the same land was necessarily despotic; the old Teutonic freedom was necessarily lost. Such a system as that which Theodoric established needed a Theodoric to carry it on. It broke in pieces after his death.

On the death of Theodoric (526) the East and West Goths were again separated. The few instances in which they are found acting together after this time are as scattered and incidental as they were before. Amalaric succeeded to the West Gothic kingdom in Spain and Septimania. Provence was added to the dominion of the new East Gothic king Athalaric, the grandson of Theodoric through his daughter Amalasuntha. The weakness of the East Gothic position in Italy now showed itself. The long wars of Justinian’s reign (535-555) recovered Italy for the Empire, and the Gothic name died out on Italian soil. The chance of forming a national state in Italy by the union of Roman and Teutonic elements, such as those which arose in Gaul, in Spain, and in parts of Italy under Lombard rule, was thus lost. The East Gothic kingdom was destroyed before Goths and Italians had at all mingled together. The war of course made the distinction stronger; under the kings who were chosen for the purposes of the war national Gothic feeling had revived. The Goths were now again, if not a wandering people, yet an armed host, no longer the protectors but the 275 enemies of the Roman people of Italy. The East Gothic dominion and the East Gothic name wholly passed away. The nation had followed Theodoric. It is only once or twice after his expedition that we hear of Goths, or even of Gothic leaders, m the eastern provinces. From the soil of Italy the nation passed away almost without a trace, while the next Teutonic conquerors stamped their name on the two ends of the land, one of which keeps it to this day.

The West Gothic kingdom lasted much longer, and came much nearer to establishing itself as a national power in the lands which it took in. But the difference of race and faith between the Arian Goths and the Catholic Romans of Gaul and Spain influenced the history of the West Gothic kingdom for a long time. The Arian Goths ruled over Catholic subjects, and were surrounded by Catholic neighbours. The Franks were Catholics from their first conversion; the Suevi became Catholics much earlier than the Goths. The African conquests of Belisarius gave the Goths of Spain, instead of the Arian Vandals, another Catholic neighbour in the form of the restored Roman power. The Catholics everywhere preferred either Roman, Suevian or Frankish rule to that of the heretical Goths; even the unconquerable mountaineers of Cantabria seem for a while to have received a Frankish governor. In some other mountain districts the Roman inhabitants long maintained their independence, and in 534 a large part of the south of Spain, including the great cities of Cadiz, Cordova, Seville and New Carthage, was, with the good will of its Roman inhabitants, reunited to the Empire, which kept some points on the coast as late as 624. That is to say, the same work which the Empire was carrying on in Italy against the East Goths was at the same moment carried on in Spain against the West Goths. But in Italy the whole land was for a while won back, and the Gothic power passed away for ever. In Spain the Gothic power outlived the Roman power, but it outlived it only by itself becoming in some measure Roman. The greatest period of the Gothic power as such was in the reign of Leovigild (568-586). He reunited the Gaulish and Spanish parts of the kingdom which had been parted for a moment; he united the Suevian dominion to his own; he overcame some of the independent districts, and won back part of the recovered Roman province in southern Spain. He further established the power of the crown over the Gothic nobles, who were beginning to grow into territorial lords. The next reign, that of his son Recared (586-601), was marked by a change which took away the great hindrance which had thus far stood in the way of any national union between Goths and Romans. The king and the greater part of the Gothic people embraced the Catholic faith. A vast degree of influence now fell into the hands of the Catholic bishops; the two nations began to unite; the Goths were gradually romanized and the Gothic language began to go out of use. In short, the Romance nation and the Romance speech of Spain began to be formed. The Goths supplied the Teutonic infusion into the Roman mass. The kingdom, however, still remained a Gothic kingdom. “Gothic,” not “Roman” or “Spanish,” is its formal title; only a single late instance of the use of the formula “regnum Hispaniae” is known. In the first half of the 7th century that name became for the first time geographically applicable by the conquest of the still Roman coast of southern Spain. The Empire was then engaged in the great struggle with the Avars and Persians, and, now that the Gothic kings were Catholic, the great objection to their rule on the part of the Roman inhabitants was taken away. The Gothic nobility still remained a distinct class, and held, along with the Catholic prelacy, the right of choosing the king. Union with the Catholic Church was accompanied by the introduction of the ecclesiastical ceremony of anointing, a change decidedly favourable to elective rule. The growth of those later ideas which tended again to favour the hereditary doctrine had not time to grow up in Spain before the Mahommedan conquest (711). The West Gothic crown therefore remained elective till the end. The modern Spanish nation is the growth of the long struggle with the Mussulmans; but it has a direct connexion with the West Gothic kingdom. We see at once that the Goths hold altogether a different place in Spanish memory from that which they hold in Italian memory. In Italy the Goth was but a momentary invader and ruler; the Teutonic element in Italy comes from other sources. In Spain the Goth supplies an important element in the modern nation. And that element has been neither forgotten nor despised. Part of the unconquered region of northern Spain, the land of Asturia, kept for a while the name of Gothia, as did the Gothic possessions in Gaul and in Crim. The name of the people who played so great a part in all southern Europe, and who actually ruled over so large a part of it has now wholly passed away; but it is in Spain that its historical impress is to be looked for.

Of Gothic literature in the Gothic language we have the Bible of Ulfilas, and some other religious writings and fragments (see Gothic Language below). Of Gothic legislation in Latin we have the edict of Theodoric of the year 500, edited by F. Bluhme in the Monumenta Germaniae historica; and the books of Variae of Cassiodorus may pass as a collection of the state papers of Theodoric and his immediate successors. Among the West Goths written laws had already been put forth by Euric. The second Alaric (484-507) put forth a Breviarium of Roman law for his Roman subjects; but the great collection of West Gothic laws dates from the later days of the monarchy, being put forth by King Recceswinth about 654. This code gave occasion to some well-known comments by Montesquieu and Gibbon, and has been discussed by Savigny (Geschichte des römischen Rechts, ii. 65) and various other writers. They are printed in the Monumenta Germaniae, leges, tome i. (1902). Of special Gothic histories, besides that of Jordanes, already so often quoted, there is the Gothic history of Isidore, archbishop of Seville, a special source of the history of the West Gothic kings down to Svinthala (621-631). But all the Latin and Greek writers contemporary with the days of Gothic predominance make their constant contributions. Not for special facts, but for a general estimate, no writer is more instructive than Salvian of Marseilles in the 5th century, whose work De Gubernatione Dei is full of passages contrasting the vices of the Romans with the virtues of the barbarians, especially of the Goths. In all such pictures we must allow a good deal for exaggeration both ways, but there must be a ground-work of truth. The chief virtues which the Catholic presbyter praises in the Arian Goths are their chastity, their piety according to their own creed, their tolerance towards the Catholics under their rule, and their general good treatment of their Roman subjects. He even ventures to hope that such good people may be saved, notwithstanding their heresy. All this must have had some groundwork of truth in the 5th century, but it is not very wonderful if the later West Goths of Spain had a good deal fallen away from the doubtless somewhat ideal picture of Salvian.

Gothic Language.—Our knowledge of the Gothic language is derived almost entirely from the fragments of a translation 276 of the Bible which is believed to have been made by the Arian bishop Wulfila or Ulfilas (d. 383) for the Goths who dwelt on the lower Danube. The MSS. which have come down to us and which date from the period of Ostrogothic rule in Italy (489-555) contain the Second Epistle to the Corinthians complete, together with more or less considerable fragments of the four Gospels and of all the other Pauline Epistles. The only remains of the Old Testament are three short fragments of Ezra and Nehemiah. There is also an incomplete commentary (skeireins) on St John’s Gospel, a fragment of a calendar, and two charters (from Naples and Arezzo, the latter now lost) which contain some Gothic sentences. All these texts are written in a special character, which is said to have been invented by Wulfila. It is based chiefly on the uncial Greek alphabet, from which indeed most of the letters are obviously derived, and several orthographical peculiarities, e.g. the use of ai for e and ei for ī reflect the Greek pronunciation of the period. Other letters, however, have been taken over from the Runic and Latin alphabets. Apart from the texts mentioned above, the only remains of the Gothic language are the proper names and occasional words which occur in Greek and Latin writings, together with some notes, including the Gothic alphabet, in a Salzburg MS. of the 10th century, and two short inscriptions on a torque and a spear-head, discovered at Buzeo (Walachia) and Kovel (Volhynia) respectively. The language itself, as might be expected from the date of Wulfila’s translation, is of a much more archaic type than that of any other Teutonic writings which we possess, except a few of the earliest Northern inscriptions. This may be seen, e.g. in the better preservation of final and unaccented syllables and in the retention of the dual and the middle (passive) voice in verbs. It would be quite erroneous, however, to regard the Gothic fragments as representing a type of language common to all Teutonic nations in the 4th century. Indeed the distinctive characteristics of the language are very marked, and there is good reason for believing that it differed considerably from the various northern and western languages, whereas the differences among the latter at this time were probably comparatively slight (see Teutonic Languages). On the other hand, it must not be supposed that the language of the Goths stood quite isolated. Procopius (Vand. i. 2) states distinctly that the Gothic language was spoken not only by the Ostrogoths and Visigoths but also by the Vandals and the Gepidae; and in the former case there is sufficient evidence, chiefly from proper names, to prove that his statement is not far from the truth. With regard to the Gepidae we have less information; but since the Goths, according to Jordanes (cap. 17), believed them to have been originally a branch of their own nation, it is highly probable that the two languages were at least closely related. Procopius elsewhere (Vand. i. 3; Goth. i. 1, iii. 2) speaks of the Rugii, Sciri and Alani as Gothic nations. The fact that the two former were sprung from the north-east of Germany renders it probable that they had Gothic affinities, while the Alani, though non-Teutonic in origin, may have become gothicized in the course of the migration period. Some modern writers have included in the same class the Burgundians, a nation which had apparently come from the basin of the Oder, but the evidence at our disposal on the whole hardly justifies the supposition that their language retained a close affinity with Gothic.

In the 4th and 5th centuries the Gothic language—using the term in its widest sense—must have spread over the greater part of Europe together with the north coast of Africa. It disappeared, however, with surprising rapidity. There is no evidence for its survival in Italy or Africa after the fall of the Ostrogothic and Vandal kingdoms, while in Spain it is doubtful whether the Visigoths retained their language until the Arabic conquest. In central Europe it may have lingered somewhat longer in view of the evidence of the Salzburg MS. mentioned above. Possibly the information there given was derived from southern Hungary or Transylvania where remains of the Gepidae were to be found shortly before the Magyar invasion (889). According to Walafridus Strabo (de Reb. Eccles. cap. 7) also Gothic was still used in his time (the 9th century) in some churches in the region of the lower Danube. Thenceforth the language seems to have survived only among the Goths (Goti Tetraxitae) of the Crimea, who are mentioned for the last time by Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, an imperial envoy at Constantinople about the middle of the 16th century. He collected a number of words and phrases in use among them which show clearly that their language, though not unaffected by Iranian influence, was still essentially a form of Gothic.

GOTLAND, an island in the Baltic Sea belonging to Sweden, lying between 57° and 58° N., and having a length from S.S.W. to N.N.E. of 75 m., a breadth not exceeding 30 m., and an area of 1142 sq. m. The nearest point on the mainland is 50 m. from the westernmost point of the island. With the island Fårö, off the northern extremity, the Karlsöe, off the west coast, and Götska Sandö, 25 m. N. by E., Gotland forms the administrative district (län) of Gotland. The island is a level plateau of Silurian limestone, rising gently eastward, of an average height of 80 to 100 ft., with steep coasts fringed with tapering, free-standing columns of limestone (raukar). A few low isolated hills rise inland. The climate is temperate, and the soil, although in parts dry and sterile, is mostly fertile. Former marshy moors have been largely drained and cultivated. There are extensive sand-dunes in the north. As usual in a limestone formation, some of the streams have their courses partly below the surface, and caverns are not infrequent. Less than half the total area is under forest, the extent of which was formerly much greater. Barley, rye, wheat and oats are grown, especially the first, which is exported to the breweries on the mainland. The sugar-beet is also produced and exported, and there are beet-sugar works on the island. Sheep and cattle are kept; there is a government sheep farm at Roma, and the cattle may be noted as belonging principally to an old native breed, yellow and horned. Some lime-burning, cement-making and sea-fishing are carried on. The capital of the island is Visby, on the west coast. There are over 80 m. of railways. Lines run from Visby N.E. to Tingstäde and S. to Hofdhem, with branches from Roma to Klintehamn, a small watering-place on the west coast, and to Slitehamn on the east. Excepting along the coast the island has no scenic attraction, but it is of the highest archaeological interest. Nearly every village has its ruined church, and others occur where no villages remain. The shrunken walled town of Visby was one of the richest commercial centres of the Baltic from the 11th to the 14th century, and its prosperity was shared by the whole island. It retains ten churches besides the cathedral. The massive towers of the village churches are often detached, and doubtless served purposes of defence. The churches of Roma, Hemse, with remarkable mural paintings, Othen and Lärbo may be specially noted. Some contain fine stained glass, as at Dalhem near Visby. The natives of Gotland speak a dialect distinguished from that of any part of the Swedish mainland. Pop. of län (1900) 52,781.

Gotland was subject to Sweden before 890, and in 1030 was christianized by St Olaf, king of Norway, when returning from his exile at Kiev. He dedicated the first church in the island to St Peter at Visby. At that time Visby had long been one of the most important trading towns in the Baltic, and the chief distributing centre of the oriental commerce which came to Europe along the rivers of Russia. In the early years of the 277 Hanseatic League, or about the middle of the 13th century, it became the chief depôt for the produce of the eastern Baltic countries, including, in a commercial sense, its daughter colony (11th century or earlier) of Novgorod the Great. Although Visby was an independent member of the Hanseatic League, the influence of Lübeck was paramount in the city, and half its governing body were men of German descent. Indeed, Björkander endeavours to prove that the city was a German (Hanseatic) foundation, dating principally from the middle of the 12th century. However that may be, the importance of Visby in the sea trade of the North is conclusively attested by the famous code of maritime law which bears its name. This Waterrecht dat de Kooplüde en de Schippers gemakt hebben to Visby (“sea-law which the merchants and seamen have made at Visby”) was a compilation based upon the Lübeck code, the Oléron code and the Amsterdam code, and was first printed in Low German in 1505, but in all probability had its origin about 1240, or not much later (see Sea Laws). By the middle of the the city was so great that, according to an old ballad, “the Gotlanders weighed out gold with stone weights and played with the choicest jewels. The swine ate out of silver troughs, and the women spun with distaffs of gold.” This fabled wealth was too strong a temptation for the energetic Valdemar Atterdag of Denmark. In 1361 he invaded the island, routed the defenders of Visby under the city walls (a monolithic cross marks the burial-place of the islanders who fell) and plundered the city. From this blow it never recovered, its decay being, however, materially helped by the fact that for the greater part of the next 150 years it was the stronghold of successive freebooters or sea-rovers—first, of the Hanseatic privateers called Vitalienbrödre or Viktualienbrüder, who made it their stronghold during the last eight years of the 14th century; then of the Teutonic Knights, whose Grand Master drove out the “Victuals Brothers,” and kept the island until it was redeemed by Queen Margaret. There too Erik XIII. (the Pomeranian), after being driven out of Denmark by his own subjects, established himself in 1437, and for a dozen years waged piracy upon Danes and Swedes alike. After him came Olaf and Ivar Thott, two Danish lords, who down to the year 1487 terrorized the seas from their pirates’ stronghold of Visby. Lastly, the Danish admiral Sören Norrby, the last supporter of Christian I. of Denmark, when his master’s cause was lost, waged a guerrilla war upon the Danish merchant ships and others from the same convenient base. But this led to an expedition by the men of Lübeck, who partly destroyed Visby in 1525. By the peace of Stettin (1570) Gotland was confirmed to the Danish crown, to which it had been given by Queen Margaret. But at the peace of Brömsebro in 1645 it was at length restored to Sweden, to which it has since belonged, except for the three years 1676-1679, when it was forcibly occupied by the Danes, and a few weeks in 1808, when the Russians landed a force.

The extreme wealth of the Gotlanders naturally fostered a spirit of independence, and their relations with Sweden were curious. The island at one period paid an annual tribute of 60 marks of silver to Sweden, but it was clearly recognized that it was paid by the desire of the Gotlanders, and not enforced by Sweden. The pope recognized their independence, and it was by their own free will that they came under the spiritual charge of the bishop of Linköping. Their local government was republican in form, and a popular assembly is indicated in the written Gotland Law, which dates not later than the middle of the 13th century. Sweden had no rights of objection to the measures adopted by this body, and there was no Swedish judge or other official in the island. Visby had a system of government and rights independent of, and in some measure opposed to, that of the rest of the island. It seems clear that there were at one time two separate corporations, for the native Gotlanders and the foreign traders respectively, and that these were subsequently fused. The rights and status of native Gotlanders were not enjoyed by foreigners as a whole—even intermarriage was illegal—but Germans, on account of their commercial pre-eminence in the island, were excepted.

GOTO ISLANDS [Goto Retto, Gotto], a group of islands belonging to Japan, lying west of Kiushiu, in 33° N., 129° E. The southern of the two principal islands, Fukae-shima, measures 17 m. by 13½; the northern, Nakaori-shima, measures 23 m. by 7½. These islands lie almost in the direct route of steamers plying between Nagasaki and Shanghai, and are distant some 50 m. from Nagasaki. Some dome-shaped hills command the old castle-town of Fukae. The islands are highly cultivated; deer and other game abound, and trout are plentiful in the mountain streams. A majority of the inhabitants are Christians.

GOTTER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM (1746-1797), German poet and dramatist, was born on the 3rd of September 1746, at Gotha. After the completion of his university career at Göttingen, he was appointed second director of the Archive of his native town, and subsequently went to Wetzlar, the seat of the imperial law courts, as secretary to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha legation. In 1768 he returned to Gotha as tutor to two young noblemen, and here, together with H. C. Boie, he founded the famous Göttinger Musenalmanach. In 1770 he was once more in Wetzlar, where he belonged to Goethe’s circle of acquaintances. Four years later he took up his permanent abode in Gotha, where he died on the 18th of March 1797. Gotter was the chief representative of French taste in the German literary life of his time. His own poetry is elegant and polished, and in great measure free from the trivialities of the Anacreontic lyric of the earlier generation of imitators of French literature; but he was lacking in the imaginative depth that characterizes the German poetic temperament. His plays, of which Merope (1774), an adaptation in admirable blank verse of the tragedies of Maffei and Voltaire, and Medea (1775), a melodrame, are best known, were mostly based on French originals and had considerable influence in counteracting the formlessness and irregularity of the Sturm und Drang drama.

GOTTFRIED VON STRASSBURG, one of the chief German poets of the middle ages. The dates of his birth and death are alike unknown, but he was the contemporary of Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Walther von der Vogelweide, and his epic Tristan was written about the year 1210. In all probability he did not belong to the nobility, as he is entitled Meister, never Herr, by his contemporaries; his poem—the only work that can with any certainty be attributed to him—bears witness to a learned education. The story of Tristan had been evolved from its shadowy Celtic origins by the French trouvères of the early 12th century, and had already found its way into Germany before the close of that century, in the crude, unpolished version of Eilhart von Oberge. It was Gottfried, however, who gave it its final form. His version is based not on that of Chrétien de Troyes, but on that of a trouvère Thomas, who seems to have been more popular with contemporaries. A comparison of the German epic with the French original is, however, impossible, as Chrétien’s Tristan is entirely lost, and of Thomas’s only a few fragments have come down to us. The story centres in the fatal voyage which Tristan, a vassal to the court of his uncle King Marke of Kurnewal (Cornwall), makes to Ireland to bring back Isolde as the king’s bride. On the return voyage Tristan and Isolde drink by mistake a love potion, which binds them irrevocably to each other. The epic resolves itself into a series of love intrigues in which the two lovers ingeniously outwit the trusting king. They are ultimately discovered, and Tristan flees to Normandy where he marries another Isolde—“Isolde with the white hands”—without 278 being able to forget the blond Isolde of Ireland. At this point Gottfried’s narrative breaks off and to learn the close of the story we have to turn to two minor poets of the time, Ulrich von Türheim and Heinrich von Freiberg—the latter much the superior—who have supplied the conclusion. After further love adventures Tristan is fatally wounded by a poisoned spear in Normandy; the “blond Isolde,” as the only person who has power to cure him, is summoned from Cornwall. The ship that brings her is to bear a white sail if she is on board, a black one if not. Tristan’s wife, however, deceives him, announcing that the sail is black, and when Isolde arrives, she finds her lover dead. Marke at last learns the truth concerning the love potion, and has the two lovers buried side by side in Kurnewal.

It is difficult to form an estimate of Gottfried’s independence of his French source; but it seems clear that he followed closely the narrative of events he found in Thomas. He has, however, introduced into the story an astounding fineness of psychological motive, which, to judge from a general comparison of the Arthurian epic in both lands, is German rather than French; he has spiritualized and deepened the narrative; he has, above all, depicted with a variety and insight, unusual in medieval literature, the effects of an overpowering passion. Yet, glowing and seductive as Gottfried’s love-scenes are, they are never for a moment disfigured by frivolous hints or innuendo; the tragedy is unrolled with an earnestness that admits of no touch of humour, and also, it may be added, with a freedom from moralizing which was easier to attain in the 13th than in later centuries. The mastery of style is no less conspicuous. Gottfried had learned his best lessons from Hartmann von Aue, but he was a more original and daring artificer of rhymes and rhythms than that master; he delighted in the sheer music of words, and indulged in antitheses and allegorical conceits to an extent that proved fatal to his imitators. As far as beauty of expression is concerned, Gottfried’s Tristan is the masterpiece of the German court epic.

GÖTTINGEN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Hanover, pleasantly situated at the west foot of the Hainberg (1200 ft.), in the broad and fertile valley of the Leine, 67 m. S. from Hanover, on the railway to Cassel. Pop. (1875) 17,057, (1905) 34,030. It is traversed by the Leine canal, which separates the Altstadt from the Neustadt and from Masch, and is surrounded by ramparts, which are planted with lime-trees and form an agreeable promenade. The streets in the older part of the town are for the most part crooked and narrow, but the newer portions are spaciously and regularly built. Apart from the Protestant churches of St John, with twin towers, and of St James, with a high tower (290 ft.), the medieval town hall, built in the 14th century and restored in 1880, and the numerous university buildings, Göttingen possesses few structures of any public importance. There are several thriving industries, including, besides the various branches of the publishing trade, the manufacture of cloth and woollens and of mathematical and other scientific instruments.

The university, the famous Georgia Augusta, founded by George II. in 1734 and opened in 1737, rapidly attained a leading position, and in 1823 its students numbered 1547. Political disturbances, in which both professors and students were implicated, lowered the attendance to 860 in 1834. The expulsion in 1837 of the famous seven professors—Die Göttinger Sieben—viz. the Germanist, Wilhelm Eduard Albrecht (1800-1876); the historian, Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann (1785-1860); the orientalist, Georg Heinrich August Ewald (1803-1875); the historian, Georg Gottfried Gervinus (1805-1875); the physicist, Wilhelm Eduard Weber (1804-1891); and the philologists, the brothers Jacob Ludwig Karl Grimm (1785-1863), and Wilhelm Karl Grimm (1786-1859),—for protesting against the revocation by King Ernest Augustus of Hanover of the liberal constitution of 1833, further reduced the prosperity of the university. The events of 1848, on the other hand, told somewhat in its favour; and, since the annexation of Hanover in 1866, it has been carefully fostered by the Prussian government. In 1903 its teaching staff numbered 121 and its students 1529. The main university building lies on the Wilhelmsplatz, and, adjoining, is the famous library of 500,000 vols, and 5300 MSS., the richest collection of modern literature in Germany. There is a good chemical laboratory as well as adequate zoological, ethnographical and mineralogical collections, the most remarkable being Blumenbach’s famous collection of skulls in the anatomical institute. There are also a celebrated observatory, long under the direction of Wilhelm Klinkerfues (1827-1884), a botanical garden, an agricultural institute and various hospitals, all connected with the university. Of the scientific societies the most noted is the Royal Society of Sciences (Königliche Sozietät der Wissenschaften) founded by Albrecht von Haller, which is divided into three classes, the physical, the mathematical and the historical-philological. It numbers about 80 members and publishes the well-known Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen. There are monuments in the town to the mathematicians K. F. Gauss and W. E. Weber, and also to the poet G. A. Bürger.

The earliest mention of a village of Goding or Gutingi occurs in documents of about 950 A.D. The place received municipal rights from the German king Otto IV. about 1210, and from 1286 to 1463 it was the seat of the princely house of Brunswick-Göttingen. During the 14th century it held a high place among the towns of the Hanseatic League. In 1531 it joined the Reformation movement, and in the following century it suffered considerably in the Thirty Years’ War, being taken by Tilly in 1626, after a siege of 25 days, and recaptured by the Saxons in 1632. After a century of decay, it was anew brought into importance by the establishment of its university; and a marked increase in its industrial and commercial prosperity has again taken place in recent years. Towards the end of the 18th century Göttingen was the centre of a society of young poets of the Sturm und Drang period of German literature, known as the Göttingen Dichterbund or Hainbund (see Germany: Literature).

GÖTTLING, CARL WILHELM (1793-1869), German classical scholar, was born at Jena on the 19th of January 1793. He studied at the universities of Jena and Berlin, took part in the war against France in 1814, and finally settled down in 1822 as professor at the university of his native town, where he continued to reside till his death on the 20th of January 1869. In his early years Göttling devoted himself to German literature, and published two works on the Nibelungen: Über das Geschichtliche im Nibelungenliede (1814) and Nibelungen und Gibelinen (1817). The greater part of his life, however, was devoted to the study of classical literature, especially the elucidation of Greek authors. The contents of his Gesammelte Abhandlungen aus dem klassischen Altertum (1851-1863) and Opuscula Academica (published in 1869 after his death) sufficiently indicate the varied nature of his studies. He edited the Τέχνη (grammatical manual) of Theodosius of Alexandria (1822), Aristotle’s Politics (1824), and Economics (1830) and Hesiod (1831; 3rd ed. by J. Flach, 1878). Mention may also be made of his Allgemeine Lehre vom Accent der griechischen Sprache (1835), enlarged from a 279 smaller work, which was translated into English (1831) as the Elements of Greek Accentuation; and of his Correspondence with Goethe (published 1880).

GOTTSCHALK [Godescalus, Gottescale], (c. 808-867 ?), German theologian, was born near Mainz, and was devoted (oblatus) from infancy by his parents,—his father was a Saxon, Count Bern,—to the monastic life. He was trained at the monastery of Fulda, then under the abbot Hrabanus Maurus, and became the friend of Walafrid Strabo and Loup of Ferrières. In June 829, at the synod of Mainz, on the pretext that he had been unduly constrained by his abbot, he sought and obtained his liberty, withdrew first to Corbie, where he met Ratramnus, and then to the monastery of Orbais in the diocese of Soissons. There he studied St Augustine, with the result that he became an enthusiastic believer in the doctrine of absolute predestination, in one point going beyond his master—Gottschalk believing in a predestination to condemnation as well as in a predestination to salvation, while Augustine had contented himself with the doctrine of preterition as complementary to the doctrine of election. Between 835 and 840 Gottschalk was ordained priest, without the knowledge of his bishop, by Rigbold, chorepiscopus of Reims. Before 840, deserting his monastery, he went to Italy, preached there his doctrine of double predestination, and entered into relations with Notting, bishop of Verona, and Eberhard, count of Friuli. Driven from Italy through the influence of Hrabanus Maurus, now archbishop of Mainz, who wrote two violent letters to Notting and Eberhard, he travelled through Dalmatia, Pannonia and Norica, but continued preaching and writing. In October 848 he presented to the synod at Mainz a profession of faith and a refutation of the ideas expressed by Hrabanus Maurus in his letter to Notting. He was convicted, however, of heresy, beaten, obliged to swear that he would never again enter the territory of Louis the German, and handed over to Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, who sent him back to his monastery at Orbais. The next year at a provincial council at Quierzy, presided over by Charles the Bald, he attempted to justify his ideas, but was again condemned as a heretic and disturber of the public peace, was degraded from the priesthood, whipped, obliged to burn his declaration of faith, and shut up in the monastery of Hautvilliers. There Hincmar tried again to induce him to retract. Gottschalk however continued to defend his doctrine, writing to his friends and to the most eminent theologians of France and Germany. A great controversy resulted. Prudentius, bishop of Troyes, Wenilo of Sens, Ratramnus of Corbie, Loup of Ferrières and Florus of Lyons wrote in his favour. Hincmar wrote De praedestinatione and De una non trina deitate against his views, but gained little aid from Johannes Scotus Erigena, whom he had called in as an authority. The question was discussed at the councils of Kiersy (853), of Valence (855) and of Savonnières (859). Finally the pope Nicolas I. took up the case, and summoned Hincmar to the council of Metz (863). Hincmar either could not or would not appear, but declared that Gottschalk might go to defend himself before the pope. Nothing came of this, however, and when Hincmar learned that Gottschalk had fallen ill, he forbade him the sacraments or burial in consecrated ground unless he would recant. This Gottschalk refused to do. He died on the 30th of October between 866 and 870.

Gottschalk was a vigorous and original thinker, but also of a violent temperament, incapable of discipline or moderation in his ideas as in his conduct. He was less an innovator than a reactionary. Of his many works we have only the two professions of faith (cf. Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxxi. c. 347 et seq.), and some poems, edited by L. Traube in Monumenta Germaniae historica: Poëtae Latini aevi Carolini (t. iii. 707-738). Some fragments of his theological treatises have been preserved in the writings of Hincmar, Erigena, Ratramnus and Loup of Ferrières.

GOTTSCHALL, RUDOLF VON (1823-1909), German man of letters, was born at Breslau on the 30th of September 1823, the son of a Prussian artillery officer. He received his early education at the gymnasia in Mainz and Coburg, and subsequently at Rastenburg in East Prussia. In 1841 he entered the university of Königsberg as a student of law, but, in consequence of his pronounced liberal opinions, was expelled. The academic authorities at Breslau and Leipzig were not more tolerant towards the young fire-eater, and it was only in Berlin that he eventually found himself free to prosecute his studies. During this period of unrest he issued Lieder der Gegenwart (1842) and Zensurflüchtlinge (1843)—the poetical fruits of his political enthusiasm. He completed his studies in Berlin, took the degree of doctor juris in Königsberg, and endeavoured to obtain there the venia legendi. His political views again stood in the way, and forsaking the legal career, Gottschall now devoted himself entirely to literature. He met with immediate success, and beginning as dramaturge in Königsberg with Der Blinde von Alcala (1846) and Lord Byron in Italien (1847) proceeded to Hamburg where he occupied a similar position. In 1852 he married Marie, baroness von Seherr-Thoss, and for the next few years lived in Silesia. In 1862 he took over the editorship of a Posen newspaper, but in 1864 removed to Leipzig. Gottschall was raised, in 1877, by the king of Prussia to the hereditary nobility with the prefix “von,” having been previously made a Geheimer Hofrat by the grand duke of Weimar. Down to 1887 Gottschall edited the Brockhaus’sche Blätter für litterarische Unterhaltung and the monthly periodical Unsere Zeit. He died at Leipzig on the 21st of March 1909.

Gottschall’s prolific literary productions cover the fields of poetry, novel-writing and literary criticism. Among his volumes of lyric poetry are Sebastopol (1856), Janus (1873), Bunte Blüten (1891). Among his epics, Carlo Zeno (1854), Maja (1864), dealing with an episode in the Indian Mutiny, and Merlins Wanderungen (1887). The comedy Pitt und Fox (1854), first produced on the stage in Breslau, was never surpassed by the other lighter pieces of the author, among which may be mentioned Die Welt des Schwindels and Der Spion von Rheinsberg. The tragedies, Mazeppa, Catharine Howard, Amy Robsart and Der Götze von Venedig, were very successful; and the historical novels, Im Banne des schwarzen Adlers (1875; 4th ed., 1884), Die Erbschaft des Blutes (1881), Die Tochter Rübezahls (1889), and Verkümmerte Existenzen (1892), enjoyed a high degree of popularity. As a critic and historian of literature Gottschall has also done excellent work. His Die deutsche Nationalliteratur des 19. Jahrhunderts (1855; 7th ed., 1901-1902), and Poetik (1858; 6th ed., 1903) command the respect of all students of literature.

GOTTSCHED, JOHANN CHRISTOPH (1700-1766), German author and critic, was born on the 2nd of February 1700, at Judithenkirch near Königsberg, the son of a Lutheran clergyman. He studied philosophy and history at the university of his native town, but immediately on taking the degree of Magister in 1723, fled to Leipzig in order to evade impressment in the Prussian military service. Here he enjoyed the protection of J. B. Mencke (1674-1732), who, under the name of “Philander von der Linde,” was a well-known poet and also president of the Deutschübende poetische Gesellschaft in Leipzig. Of this society Gottsched was elected “Senior” in 1726, and in the next year reorganized it under the title of the Deutsche Gesellschaft. In 1730 he was appointed extraordinary professor of poetry, and, in 1734, ordinary professor of logic and metaphysics in the university. He died at Leipzig on the 12th of December 1766.

Gottsched’s chief work was his Versuch einer kritischen Dichtkunst für die Deutschen (1730), the first systematic treatise in German on the art of poetry from the standpoint of Boileau. His Ausführliche Redekunst (1728) and his Grundlegung einer 280 deutschen Sprachkunst (1748) were of importance for the development of German style and the purification of the language. He wrote several plays, of which Der sterbende Cato (1732), an adaptation of Addison’s tragedy and a French play on the same theme, was long popular on the stage. In his Deutsche Schaubühne (6 vols., 1740-1745), which contained mainly translations from the French, he provided the German stage with a classical repertory, and his bibliography of the German drama, Nötiger Vorrat zur Geschichte der deutschen dramatischen Dichtkunst (1757-1765), is still valuable. He was also the editor of several journals devoted to literary criticism. As a critic, Gottsched insisted on German literature being subordinated to the laws of French classicism; he enunciated rules by which the playwright must be bound, and abolished bombast and buffoonery from the serious stage. While such reforms obviously afforded a healthy corrective to the extravagance and want of taste which were rampant in the German literature of the time, Gottsched went too far. In 1740 he came into conflict with the Swiss writers Johann Jakob Bodmer (q.v.) and Johann Jakob Breitinger (1701-1776), who, under the influence of Addison and contemporary Italian critics, demanded that the poetic imagination should not be hampered by artificial rules; they pointed to the great English poets, and especially to Milton. Gottsched, although not blind to the beauties of the English writers, clung the more tenaciously to his principle that poetry must be the product of rules, and, in the fierce controversy which for a time raged between Leipzig and Zürich, he was inevitably defeated. His influence speedily declined, and before his death his name became proverbial for pedantic folly.

His wife, Luise Adelgunde Victorie, née Kulmus (1713-1762), in some respects her husband’s intellectual superior, was an author of some reputation. She wrote several popular comedies, of which Das Testament is the best, and translated the Spectator (9 vols., 1730-1743), Pope’s Rape of the Lock (1744) and other English and French works. After her death her husband edited her Sämtliche kleinere Gedichte with a memoir (1763).

GÖTZ, JOHANN NIKOLAUS (1721-1781), German poet, was born at Worms on the 9th of July 1721. He studied theology at Halle (1739-1742), where he became intimate with the poets Johann W. L. Gleim and Johann Peter Uz, acted for some years as military chaplain, and afterwards filled various other ecclesiastical offices. He died at Winterburg on the 4th of November 1781. The writings of Götz consist of a number of short lyrics and several translations, of which the best is a rendering of Anacreon. His original compositions are light, lively and sparkling, and are animated rather by French wit than by German depth of sentiment. The best known of his poems is Die Mädcheninsel, an elegy which met with the warm approval of Frederick the Great.

GOUACHE, a French word adapted from the Ital. guazzo (probably in origin connected with “wash”), meaning literally a “ford,” but used also for a method of painting in opaque water-colour. The colours are mixed with or painted in a vehicle of gum or honey, and whereas in true water-colours the high lights are obtained by leaving blank the surface of the paper or other material used, or by allowing it to show through a translucent wash in “gouache,” these are obtained by white or other light colour. “Gouache” is frequently used in miniature painting.

GOUDA (or Ter Gouwe), a town of Holland, in the province of South Holland, on the north side of the Gouwe at its confluence with the Ysel, and a junction station 12½ m. by rail N.E. of Rotterdam. Pop. (1900) 22,303. Tramways connect it with Bodegraven (5½m. N.) on the old Rhine and with Oudewater (8 m. E.) on the Ysel; and there is a regular steamboat service in various directions, Amsterdam being reached by the canalized Gouwe; Aar, Drecht and Amstel. The town of Gouda is laid out in a fine open manner and, like other Dutch towns, is intersected by numerous canals. On its outskirts pleasant walks and fine trees have replaced the old fortifications. The Groote Markt is the largest market-square in Holland. Among the numerous churches belonging to various denominations, the first place must be given to the Groote Kerk of St John. It was founded in 1485, but rebuilt after a fire in 1552, and is remarkable for its dimensions (345 ft. long and 150 ft. broad), for a large and celebrated organ, and a splendid series of over forty stained-glass windows presented by cities and princes and executed by various well-known artists, including the brothers Dirk (d. c. 1577) and Wouter (d. c. 1590) Crabeth, between the years 1555 and 1603 (see Explanation of the Famous and Renowned Glass Works, &c., Gouda, 1876, reprinted from an older volume, 1718). Other noteworthy buildings are the Gothic town hall, founded in 1449 and rebuilt in 1690, and the weigh-house, built by Pieter Post of Haarlem (1608-1669) and adorned with a fine relief by Barth. Eggers (d. c. 1690). The museum of antiquities (1874) contains an exquisite chalice of the year 1425 and some pictures and portraits by Wouter Crabeth the younger, Corn. Ketel (a native of Gouda, 1548-1616) and Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680). Other buildings are the orphanage, the hospital, a house of correction for women and a music hall.

In the time of the counts the wealth of Gouda was mainly derived from brewing and cloth-weaving; but at a later date the making of clay tobacco pipes became the staple trade, and, although this industry has somewhat declined, the churchwarden pipes of Gouda are still well known and largely manufactured. In winter-time it is considered a feat to skate hither from Rotterdam and elsewhere to buy such a pipe and return with it in one’s mouth without its being broken. The mud from the Ysel furnishes the material for large brick-works and potteries; there are also a celebrated manufactory of stearine candles, a yarn factory, an oil refinery and cigar factories. The transit and shipping trade is considerable, and as one of the principal markets of South Holland, the round, white Gouda cheeses are known throughout Europe. Boskoop, 5 m. N. by W. of Gouda on the Gouwe, is famous for its nursery gardens; and the little old-world town of Oudewater as the birthplace of the famous theologian Arminius in 1560. The town hall (1588) of Oudewater contains a picture by Dirk Stoop (d. 1686), commemorating the capture of the town by the Spaniards in 1575 and the subsequent sack and massacre.

GOUDIMEL, CLAUDE, musical composer of the 16th century, was born about 1510. The French and the Belgians claim him as their countryman. In all probability he was born at Besançon, for in his edition of the songs of Arcadelt, as well as in the mass of 1554, he calls himself “natif de Besançon” and “Claudius Godimellus Vescontinus.” This discountenances the theory of Ambros that he was born at Vaison near Avignon. As to his early education we know little or nothing, but the excellent Latin in which some of his letters were written proves that, in addition to his musical knowledge, he also acquired a good classical training. It is supposed that he was in Rome in 1540 at the head of a music-school, and that besides many other celebrated musicians, Palestrina was amongst his pupils. About the middle of the century he seems to have left Rome for Paris, where, in conjunction with Jean Duchemin, he published, in 1555, a musical setting of Horace’s Odes. Infinitely more important is another collection of vocal pieces, a setting of the celebrated French version of the Psalms by Marot and Beza published in 1565. It is written in four parts, the melody being assigned to the tenor. The invention of the melodies was long ascribed to Goudimel, but they have now definitely been proved 281 to have originated in popular tunes found in the collections of this period. Some of these tunes are still used by the French Protestant Church. Others were adopted by the German Lutherans, a German imitation of the French versions of the Psalms in the same metres having been published at an early date. Although the French version of the Psalms was at first used by Catholics as well as Protestants, there is little doubt that Goudimel had embraced the new faith. In Michel Brenet’s Biographie (Annales franc-cuntoises, Besançon, 1898, P. Jacquin) it is established that in Metz, where he was living in 1565, Goudimel moved in Huguenot circles, and even figured as godfather to the daughter of the president of Senneton. Seven years later he fell a victim to religious fanaticism during the St Bartholomew massacres at Lyons from the 27th to the 28th of August 1572, his death, it is stated, being due to “les ennemis de la gloire de Dieu et quelques méchants envieux de l’honneur qu’il avait acquis.” Masses and motets belonging to his Roman period are found in the Vatican library, and in the archives of various churches in Rome; others were published. Thus the work entitled Missae tres a Claudio Goudimel praestantissimo musico auctore, nunc primum in lucem editae, contains one mass by the learned editor himself, the other two being by Claudius Sermisy and Jean Maillard respectively. Another collection, La Fleur des chansons des deux plus excellens musiciens de nostre temps, consists of part songs by Goudimel and Orlando di Lasso. Burney gives in his history a motet of Goudimel’s Domine quid multiplicati sunt.

GOUFFIER, the name of a great French family, which owned the estate of Bonnivet in Poitou from the 14th century. Guillaume Gouffier, chamberlain to Charles VII., was an inveterate enemy of Jacques Cœur, obtaining his condemnation and afterwards receiving his property (1491). He had a great number of children, several of whom played a part in history. Artus, seigneur de Boisy (c. 1475-1520) was entrusted with the education of the young count of Angoulême (Francis I.), and on the accession of this prince to the throne as Francis I. became grand master of the royal household, playing an important part in the government; to him was given the task of negotiating the treaty of Noyon in 1516; and shortly before his death the king raised the estates of Roanne and Boisy to the rank of a duchy, that of Roannais, in his favour. Adrien Gouffier (d. 1523) was bishop of Coutances and Albi, and grand almoner of France. Guillaume Gouffier, seigneur de Bonnivet, became admiral. of France (see Bonnivet). Claude Gouffier, son of Artus, was created comte de Maulevrier (1542) and marquis de Boisy (1564).

There were many branches of this family, the chief of them being the dukes of Roannais, the counts of Caravas, the lords of Crèvecœur and of Bonnivet, the marquises of Thois, of Brazeux, and of Espagny. The name of Gouffier was adopted in the 18th century by a branch of the house of Choiseul.

GOUGE, MARTIN (c. 1360-1444), surnamed de Charpaigne, French chancellor, was born at Bourges about 1360. A canon of Bourges, in 1402 he became treasurer to John, duke of Berri, and in 1406 bishop of Chartres. He was arrested by John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, with the hapless Jean de Montaigu (1349-1409) in 1409, but was soon released and then banished. Attaching himself to the dauphin Louis, duke of Guienne, he became his chancellor, the king’s ambassador in Brittany, and a member of the grand council; and on the 13th of May 1415, he was transferred from the see of Chartres to that of Clermont-Ferrand. In May 1418, when the Burgundians re-entered Paris, he only escaped death at their hands by taking refuge in the Bastille. He then left Paris, but only to fall into the hands of his enemy, the duke de la Trémoille, who imprisoned him in the castle of Sully. Rescued by the dauphin Charles, he was appointed chancellor of France on the 3rd of February 1422. He endeavoured to reconcile Burgundy and France, was a party to the selection of Arthur, earl of Richmond, as constable, but had to resign his chancellorship in favour of Regnault of Chartres; first from March 25th to August 6th 1425, and again when La Trémoille had supplanted Richmond. After the fall of La Trémoille in 1433 he returned to court, and exercised a powerful influence over affairs of state almost till his death, which took place at the castle of Beaulieu (Puy-de-Dôme) on the 25th or 26th of November 1444.

GOUGE (adopted from the Fr. gouge, derived from the Late Lat. gubia or gulbia, in Ducange gulbium, an implement ad hortum excolendum, and also instrumentum ferreum in usu fabrorum; according to the New English Dictionary the word is probably of Celtic origin, gylf, a beak, appearing in Welsh, and gilb, a boring tool, in Cornish), a tool of the chisel type with a curved blade, used for scooping a groove or channel in wood, stone, &c. (see Tool). A similar instrument is used in surgery for operations involving the excision of portions of bone. “Gouge” is also used as the name of a bookbinder’s tool, for impressing a curved line on the leather, and for the line so impressed. In mining, a “gouge” is the layer of soft rock or earth sometimes found in each side of a vein of coal or ore, which the miner can scoop out with his pick, and thus attack the vein more easily from the side. The verb “to gouge” is used in the sense of scooping or forcing out.

GOUGH, HUGH GOUGH, Viscount (1779-1869), British field-marshal, a descendant of Francis Gough who was made bishop of Limerick in 1626, was born at Woodstown, Limerick, on the 3rd of November 1779. Having obtained a commission in the army in August 1794, he served with the 78th Highlanders at the Cape of Good Hope, taking part in the capture of Cape Town and of the Dutch fleet in Saldanha Bay in 1796. His next service was in the West Indies, where, with the 87th (Royal Irish Fusiliers), he shared in the attack on Porto Rico, the capture of Surinam, and the brigand war in St Lucia. In 1809 he was called to take part in the Peninsular War, and, joining the army under Wellington, commanded his regiment as major in the operations before Oporto, by which the town was taken from the French. At Talavera he was severely wounded, and had his horse shot under him. For his conduct on this occasion he was afterwards promoted lieutenant-colonel, his commission, on the recommendation of Wellington, being antedated from the day of the duke’s despatch. He was thus the first officer who ever received brevet rank for services performed in the field at the head of a regiment. He was next engaged at the battle of Barrosa, at which his regiment captured a French eagle. At the defence of Tarifa the post of danger was assigned to him, and he compelled the enemy to raise the siege. At Vitoria, where Gough again distinguished himself, his regiment captured the baton of Marshal Jourdan. He was again severely wounded at Nivelle, and was soon after created a knight of St Charles by the king of Spain. At the close of the war he returned home and enjoyed a respite of some years from active service. He next took command of a regiment stationed in the south of Ireland, discharging at the same time the duties of a magistrate during a period of agitation. Gough was promoted major-general in 1830. Seven years later he was sent to India to take command of the Mysore division of the army. But not long after his arrival in India the difficulties which led to the first Chinese war made the presence of an energetic general on the scene indispensable, and Gough was appointed commander-in-chief of the British forces in China. This post he held during all the operations of the war; and by his great achievements and numerous victories in the face of immense difficulties, he at length enabled the English plenipotentiary, Sir H. Pottinger, to dictate peace on his own terms. After the conclusion of the treaty of Nanking in August 1842 the British forces were withdrawn; and before the close of the year Gough, who had been made a G.C.B, in the previous year for his services in the capture of the Canton forts, was created a baronet. In August 1843 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the British forces in India, and in December he took the command in person against the Mahrattas, and defeated them at Maharajpur, capturing more than fifty guns. In 1845 occurred the rupture with the Sikhs, 282 who crossed the Sutlej in large numbers, and Sir Hugh Gough conducted the operations against them, being well supported by Lord Hardinge, the governor-general, who volunteered to serve under him. Successes in the hard-fought battles of Mudki and Ferozeshah were succeeded by the victory of Sobraon, and shortly afterwards the Sikhs sued for peace at Lahore. The services of Sir Hugh Gough were rewarded by his elevation to the peerage of the United Kingdom as Baron Gough (April 1846). The war broke out again in 1848, and again Lord Gough took the field; but the result of the battle of Chillianwalla being equivocal, he was superseded by the home authorities in favour of Sir Charles Napier; before the news of the supersession arrived Lord Gough had finally crushed the Sikhs in the battle of Gujarat (February 1849). His tactics during the Sikh wars were the subject of an embittered controversy (see Sikh Wars). Lord Gough now returned to England, was raised to a viscountcy, and for the third time received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. A pension of £2000 per annum was granted to him by parliament, and an equal pension by the East India Company. He did not again see active service. In 1854 he was appointed colonel of the Royal Horse Guards, and two years later he was sent to the Crimea to invest Marshal Pélissier and other officers with the insignia of the Bath. Honours were multiplied upon him during his latter years. He was made a knight of St Patrick, being the first knight of the order who did not hold an Irish peerage, was sworn a privy councillor, was named a G.C.S.I., and in November 1862 was made field-marshal. He was twice married, and left children by both his wives. He died on the 2nd of March 1869.

GOUGH, JOHN BARTHOLOMEW (1817-1886), American temperance orator, was born at Sandgate, Kent, England, on the 22nd of August 1817. He was educated by his mother, a schoolmistress, and at the age of twelve was sent to the United States to seek his fortune. He lived for two years with family friends on a farm in western New York, and then entered a book-bindery in New York City to learn the trade. There in 1833 his mother joined him, but after her death in 1835 he fell in with dissolute companions, and became a confirmed drunkard. He lost his position, and for several years supported himself as a ballad singer and story-teller in the cheap theatres and concert-halls of New York and other eastern cities. Even this means of livelihood was being closed to him, when in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1842 he was induced to sign a temperance pledge. After several lapses and a terrific struggle, he determined to devote his life to lecturing in behalf of temperance reform. Gifted with remarkable powers of pathos and of description, he was successful from the start, and was soon known and sought after throughout the entire country, his appeals, which were directly personal and emotional, being attended with extraordinary responses. He continued his work until the end of his life, made several tours of England, where his American success was repeated, and died at his work, being stricken with apoplexy on the lecture platform at Frankford, Pennsylvania, where he passed away two days later, on the 18th of February 1886. He published an Autobiography (1846); Orations (1854); Temperance Addresses (1870); Temperance Lectures (1879); and Sunlight and Shadow, or Gleanings from My Life Work (1880).

GOUGH, RICHARD (1735-1809), English antiquary, was born in London on the 21st of October 1735. His father was a wealthy M.P. and director of the East India Company. Gough was a precocious child, and at twelve had translated from the French a history of the Bible, which his mother printed for private circulation. When fifteen he translated Abbé Fleury’s work on the Israelites; and at sixteen he published an elaborate work entitled Atlas Renovatus, or Geography modernized. In 1752 he entered Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he began his work on British topography, published in 1768. Leaving Cambridge in 1756, he began a series of antiquarian excursions in various parts of Great Britain. In 1773 he began an edition in English of Camden’s Britannia, which appeared in 1789. Meantime he published, in 1786, the first volume of his splendid work, the Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain, applied to illustrate the history of families, manners, habits, and arts at the different periods from the Norman Conquest to the Seventeenth Century. This volume, which contained the first four centuries, was followed in 1796 by a second volume containing the 15th century, and an introduction to the second volume appeared in 1799. Gough was chosen a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1767, and from 1771 to 1791 he was its director. He was elected F.R.S. in 1775. He died at Enfield on the 20th of February 1809. His books and manuscripts relating to Anglo-Saxon and northern literature, all his collections in the department of British topography, and a large number of his drawings and engravings of other archaeological remains, were bequeathed to the university of Oxford.

GOUJET, CLAUDE PIERRE (1697-1767), French abbé and littérateur, was born in Paris on the 19th of October 1697. He studied at the College of the Jesuits, and at the Collège Mazarin, but he nevertheless became a strong Jansenist. In 1705 he assumed the ecclesiastical habit, in 1719 entered the order of Oratorians, and soon afterwards was named canon of St Jacques l’Hôpital. On account of his extreme Jansenist opinions he suffered considerable persecution from the Jesuits, and several of his works were suppressed at their instigation. In his latter years his health began to fail, and he lost his eyesight. Poverty compelled him to sell his library, a sacrifice which hastened his death, which took place at Paris on the 1st of February 1767.

GOUJON, JEAN (c. 1520-c. 1566), French sculptor of the 16th century. Although some evidence has been offered in favour of the date 1520 (Archives de l’art français, iii. 350), the time and place of his birth are still uncertain. The first mention of his name occurs in the accounts of the church of St Maclou at Rouen in the year 1540, and in the following year he was employed at the cathedral of the same town, where he added to the tomb of Cardinal d’Amboise a statue of his nephew Georges, afterwards removed, and possibly carved portions of the tomb of Louis de Brezé, executed some time after 1545. On leaving Rouen, Goujon was employed by Pierre Lescot, the celebrated architect of the Louvre, on the restorations of St-Germain l’Auxerrois; the building accounts—some of which for the years 1542-1544 were discovered by M. de Laborde on a piece of parchment binding—specify as his work, not only the carvings of the pulpit (Louvre), but also a Notre Dame de Piété, now lost. In 1547 appeared Martin’s French translation of Vitruvius, the illustrations of which were due, the translator tells us in his “Dedication to the King,” to Goujon, “naguères architecte de Monseigneur le Connétable, et maintenant un des vôtres.” We learn from this statement not only that Goujon had been taken into the royal service on the accession of Henry II., but also that he had been previously employed under Bullant on the château of Écouen. Between 1547 and 1549 he was employed in the decoration of the Loggia ordered from Lescot for the entry of Henry II. into Paris, which took place on the 16th of June 1549. Lescot’s edifice was reconstructed at the end of the 18th century by Bernard Poyet into the Fontaine des Innocents, this being a considerable variation of the original design. At the Louvre, Goujon, under the direction of Lescot, executed the carvings of the south-west angle of the court, the 283 reliefs of the Escalier Henri II., and the Tribune des Cariatides, for which he received 737 livres on the 5th of September 1550. Between 1548 and 1554 rose the château d’Anet, in the embellishment of which Goujon was associated with Philibert Delorme in the service of Diana of Poitiers. Unfortunately the building accounts of Anet have disappeared, but Goujon executed a vast number of other works of equal importance, destroyed or lost in the great Revolution. In 1555 his name appears again in the Louvre accounts, and continues to do so every succeeding year up to 1562, when all trace of him is lost. In the course of this year an attempt was made to turn out of the royal employment all those who were suspected of Huguenot tendencies. Goujon has always been claimed as a Reformer; it is consequently possible that he was one of the victims of this attack. We should therefore probably ascribe the work attributed to him in the Hôtel Carnavalet (in situ), together with much else executed in various parts of Paris—but now dispersed or destroyed—to a period intervening between the date of his dismissal from the Louvre and his death, which is computed to have taken place between 1564 and 1568, probably at Bologna. The researches of M. Tomaso Sandonnini (see Gazette des Beaux Arts, 2e période, vol. xxxi.) have finally disposed of the supposition, long entertained, that Goujon died during the St Bartholomew massacre in 1572.

List of authentic works of Jean Goujon: Two marble columns supporting the organ of the church of St Maclou (Rouen) on right and left of porch on entering; left-hand gate of the church of St Maclou; bas-reliefs for decoration of screen of St Germain l’Auxerrois (now in Louvre); “Victory” over chimney-piece of Salle des Gardes at Écouen; altar at Chantilly; illustrations for Jean Martin’s translation of Vitruvius; bas-reliefs and sculptural decoration of Fontaine des Innocents; bas-reliefs adorning entrance of Hôtel Carnavalet, also series of satyrs’ heads on keystones of arcade of courtyard; fountain of Diana from Anet (now in Louvre); internal decoration of chapel at Anet; portico of Anet (now in courtyard of École des Beaux Arts); bust of Diane de Poiçtiers (now at Versailles); Tribune of Caryatides in the Louvre; decoration of “Escalier Henri II.,” Louvre; œils de bœuf and decoration of Henri II. façade, Louvre; groups for pediments of façade now placed over entrance to Egyptian and Assyrian collections, Louvre.

GOUJON, JEAN MARIE CLAUDE ALEXANDRE (1766-1795), French publicist and statesman, was born at Bourg on the 13th of April 1766, the son of a postmaster. The boy went early to sea, and saw fighting when he was twelve years old; in 1790 he settled at Meudon, and began to make good his lack of education. As procureur-général-syndic of the department of Seine-et-Oise, in August, 1792, he had to supply the inhabitants with food, and fulfilled his difficult functions with energy and tact. In the Convention, which he entered on the death of Hérault de Séchelles, he took his seat on the benches of the Mountain. He conducted a mission to the armies of the Rhine and the Moselle with creditable moderation, and was a consistent advocate of peace within the republic. Nevertheless, he was a determined opponent of the counter-revolution, which he denounced in the Jacobin Club and from the Mountain after his recall to Paris, following on the revolution of the 9th Thermidor (July 27, 1794). He was one of those who protested against the readmission of Louvet and other survivors of the Girondin party to the Convention in March 1795; and, when the populace invaded the legislature on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and compelled the deputies to legislate in accordance with their desires, he proposed the immediate establishment of a special commission which should assure the execution of the proposed changes and assume the functions of the various committees. The failure of the insurrection involved the fall of those deputies who had supported the demands of the populace. Before the close of the sitting, Goujon, with Romme, Duroi, Duquesnoy, Bourbotte, Soubrany and others were put under arrest by their colleagues, and on their way to the château of Taureau in Brittany had a narrow escape from a mob at Avranches. They were brought back to Paris for trial before a military commission on the 17th of June, and, though no proof of their complicity in organizing the insurrection could be found—they were, in fact, with the exception of Goujon and Bourbotte, strangers to one another—they were condemned. In accordance with a pre-arranged plan, they attempted suicide on the staircase leading from the court-room with a knife which Goujon had successfully concealed. Romme, Goujon and Duquesnoy succeeded, but the other three merely inflicted wounds which did not prevent their being taken immediately to the guillotine. With their deaths the Mountain ceased to exist as a party.

GOULBURN, EDWARD MEYRICK (1818-1897), English churchman, son of Mr Serjeant Goulburn, M.P., recorder of Leicester, and nephew of the Right Hon. Henry Goulburn, chancellor of the exchequer in the ministries of Sir Robert Peel and the duke of Wellington, was born in London on the 11th of February 1818, and was educated at Eton and at Balliol College, Oxford. In 1839 he became fellow and tutor of Merton, and in 1841 and 1843 was ordained deacon and priest respectively. For some years he held the living of Holywell, Oxford, and was chaplain to Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of the diocese. In 1849 he succeeded Tait as headmaster of Rugby, but in 1857 he resigned, and accepted the charge of Quebec Chapel, Marylebone. In 1858 he became a prebendary of St Paul’s, and in 1859 vicar of St John’s, Paddington. In 1866 he was made dean of Norwich, and in that office exercised a long and marked influence on church life. A strong Conservative and a churchman of traditional orthodoxy, he was a keen antagonist of “higher criticism” and of all forms of rationalism. His Thoughts on Personal Religion (1862) and The Pursuit of Holiness were well received; and he wrote the Life (1892) of his friend Dean Burgon, with whose doctrinal views he was substantially in agreement. He resigned the deanery in 1889, and died at Tunbridge Wells on the 3rd of May 1897.

GOULBURN, HENRY (1784-1856), English statesman, was born in London on the 19th of March 1784 and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1808 he became member of parliament for Horsham; in 1810 he was appointed under-secretary for home affairs and two and a half years later he was made under-secretary for war and the colonies. Still retaining office in the Tory government he became a privy councillor in 1821, and just afterwards was appointed chief secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, a position which he held until April 1827. Here although frequently denounced as an Orangeman, his period of office was on the whole a successful one, and in 1823 he managed to pass the Irish Tithe Composition Bill. In January 1828 he was made chancellor of the exchequer under the duke of Wellington; like his leader he disliked Roman Catholic emancipation, which he voted against in 1828. In the domain of finance Goulburn’s chief achievements were to reduce the rate of interest on part of the national debt, and to allow any one to sell beer upon payment of a small annual fee, a complete change of policy with regard to the drink traffic. Leaving office with Wellington in November 1830, Goulburn was home secretary under Sir Robert Peel for four months in 1835, and when this statesman returned to office in September 1841 he became chancellor of the exchequer for the second time. Although Peel himself did some of the chancellor’s work, Goulburn was responsible for a further reduction in the rate of interest on the national debt, and he aided his chief in the struggle which ended in the repeal of the corn laws. With his colleagues he left office in June 1846. After representing Horsham in the House of Commons for over four years Goulburn was successively member for St Germans, for West Looe, and for the city of Armagh. In May 1831 he was elected for Cambridge University, and he retained this seat until his death on the 12th of January 1856 284 at Betchworth House, Dorking. Goulburn was one of Peel’s firmest supporters and most intimate friends. His eldest son, Henry (1813-1843), was senior classic and second wrangler at Cambridge in 1835.

GOULBURN, a city of Argyle county, New South Wales, Australia, 134 m. S.W. of Sydney by the Great Southern railway. Pop. (1901) 10,618. It lies in a productive agricultural district, at an altitude of 2129 ft., and is a place of great importance, being the chief depot of the inland trade of the southern part of the state. There are Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals. Manufactures of boots and shoes, flour and beer, and tanning are important. The municipality was created in 1859; and Goulburn became a city in 1864.

GOULD, AUGUSTUS ADDISON (1805-1866), American conchologist, was born at New Ipswich, New Hampshire, on the 23rd of April 1805, graduated at Harvard College in 1825, and took his degree of doctor of medicine in 1830. Thrown from boyhood on his own exertions, it was only by industry, perseverance and self-denial that he obtained the means to pursue his studies. Establishing himself in Boston, he devoted himself to the practice of medicine, and finally rose to high professional rank and social position. He became president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and was employed in editing the vital statistics of the state. As a conchologist his reputation is world-wide, and he was one of the pioneers of the science in America. His writings fill many pages of the publications of the Boston Society of Natural History (see vol. xi. p. 197 for a list) and other periodicals. He published with L. Agassiz the Principles of Zoology (2nd ed. 1851); he edited the Terrestrial and Air-breathing Mollusks (1851-1855) of Amos Binney (1803-1847); he translated Lamarck’s Genera of Shells. The two most important monuments to his scientific work, however, are Mollusca and Shells (vol. xii., 1852) of the United States exploring expedition (1838-1842) under Lieutenant Charles Wilkes (1833), published by the government, and the Report on the Invertebrata published by order of the legislature of Massachusetts in 1841. A second edition of the latter work was authorized in 1865, and published in 1870 after the author’s death, which took place at Boston on the 15th of September 1866. Gould was a corresponding member of all the prominent American scientific societies, and of many of those of Europe, including the London Royal Society.

GOULD, BENJAMIN APTHORP (1824-1896), American astronomer, a son of Benjamin Apthorp Gould (1787-1859), principal of the Boston Latin school, was born at Boston, Massachusetts, on the 27th of September 1824. Having graduated at Harvard College in 1844, he studied mathematics and astronomy under C. F. Gauss at Göttingen, and returned to America in 1848. From 1852 to 1867 he was in charge of the longitude department of the United States coast survey; he developed and organized the service, was one of the first to determine longitudes by telegraphic means, and employed the Atlantic cable in 1866 to establish longitude-relations between Europe and America. The Astronomical Journal was founded by Gould in 1849; and its publication, suspended in 1861, was resumed by him in 1885. From 1855 to 1859 he acted as director of the Dudley observatory at Albany, New York; and published in 1859 a discussion of the places and proper motions of circumpolar stars to be used as standards by the United States coast survey. Appointed in 1862 actuary to the United States sanitary commission, he issued in 1869 an important volume of Military and Anthropological Statistics. He fitted up in 1864 a private observatory at Cambridge, Mass.; but undertook in 1868, on behalf of the Argentine republic, to organize a national observatory at Cordoba; began to observe there with four assistants in 1870, and completed in 1874 his Uranometria Argentina (published 1879) for which he received in 1883 the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. This was followed by a zone-catalogue of 73,160 stars (1884), and a general catalogue (1885) compiled from meridian observations of 32,448 stars. Gould’s measurements of L. M. Rutherfurd’s photographs of the Pleiades in 1866 entitle him to rank as a pioneer in the use of the camera as an instrument of precision; and he secured at Cordoba 1400 negatives of southern star-clusters, the reduction of which occupied the closing years of his life. He returned in 1885 to his home at Cambridge, where he died on the 26th of November 1896.

GOULD, SIR FRANCIS CARRUTHERS (1844-  ), English caricaturist and politician, was born in Barnstaple on the 2nd of December 1844. Although in early youth he showed great love of drawing, he began life in a bank and then joined the London Stock Exchange, where he constantly sketched the members and illustrated important events in the financial world; many of these drawings were reproduced by lithography and published for private circulation. In 1879 he began the regular illustration of the Christmas numbers of Truth, and in 1887 he became a contributor to the Pall Mall Gazette, transferring his allegiance to the Westminster Gazette on its foundation and subsequently acting as assistant editor. Among his independent publications are Who killed Cock Robin? (1897), Tales told in the Zoo (1900), two volumes of Froissart’s Modern Chronicles, told and pictured by F. C. Gould (1902 and 1903), and Picture Politics—a periodical reprint of his Westminster Gazette cartoons, one of the most noteworthy implements of political warfare in the armoury of the Liberal party. Frequently grafting his ideas on to subjects taken freely from Uncle Remus, Alice in Wonderland, and the works of Dickens and Shakespeare, Sir F. C. Gould used these literary vehicles with extraordinary dexterity and point, but with a satire that was not unkind and with a vigour from which bitterness, virulence and cynicism were notably absent. He was knighted in 1906.

GOULD, JAY (1836-1892), American financier, was born in Roxbury, Delaware county, New York, on the 27th of May 1836. He was brought up on his father’s farm, studied at Hobart Academy, and though he left school in his sixteenth year, devoted himself assiduously thereafter to private study, chiefly of mathematics and surveying, at the same time keeping books for a blacksmith for his board. For a short time he worked for his father in the hardware business; in 1852-1856 he worked as a surveyor in preparing maps of Ulster, Albany and Delaware counties in New York, of Lake and Geauga counties in Ohio, and of Oakland county in Michigan, and of a projected railway line between Newburgh and Syracuse, N.Y. An ardent anti-renter in his boyhood and youth, he wrote A History of Delaware County and the Border Wars of New York, containing a Sketch of the Early Settlements in the County, and A History of the Late Anti-Rent Difficulties in Delaware (Roxbury, 1856). He then engaged in the lumber and tanning business in western New York, and in banking at Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. In 1863 he married Miss Helen Day Miller, and through her father, Daniel S. Miller, he was appointed manager of the Rensselaer & Saratoga railway, which he bought up when it was in a very bad condition, and skilfully reorganized; in the same way he bought and reorganized the Rutland & Washington railway, from which he ultimately realized a large profit. In 1859 he removed to New York City, where he became a broker in railway stocks, and in 1868 he was elected president of the Erie railway, of which by shrewd strategy he and James Fisk, Jr. (q.v.), had gained control in July of that year. The management of the road under his control, and especially the sale of $5,000,000 of fraudulent stock in 1868-1870, led to litigation begun by English bondholders, and Gould was forced out of the company in March 1872 and compelled to restore securities valued at about $7,500,000. It was during his control of the Erie that he and Fisk entered into a league with the Tweed Ring, they admitted Tweed to the directorate of the Erie, and Tweed in turn arranged favourable legislation for them at Albany. With Tweed, Gould was cartooned by Nast in 1869. In October 1871 Gould was the chief bondsman of Tweed when the latter was held in $1,000,000 bail. With Fisk in August 1869 he began to buy gold in a daring 285 attempt to “corner” the market, his hope being that, with the advance in price of gold, wheat would advance to such a price that western farmers would sell, and there would be a consequent great movement of breadstuffs from West to East, which would result in increased freight business for the Erie road. His speculations in gold, during which he attempted through President Grant’s brother-in-law, A. H. Corbin, to influence the president and his secretary General Horace Porter, culminated in the panic of “Black Friday,” on the 24th of September 1869, when the price of gold fell from 162 to 135.

Gould gained control of the Union Pacific, from which in 1883 he withdrew after realizing a large profit. Buying up the stock of the Missouri Pacific he built up, by means of consolidations, reorganizations, and the construction of branch lines, the “Gould System” of railways in the south-western states. In 1880 he was in virtual control of 10,000 miles of railway, about one-ninth of the railway mileage of the United States at that time. Besides, he obtained a controlling interest in the Western Union Telegraph Company, and after 1881 in the elevated railways in New York City, and was intimately connected with many of the largest railway financial operations in the United States for the twenty years following 1868. He died of consumption and of mental strain on the 2nd of December 1892, his fortune at that time being estimated at $72,000,000; all of this he left to his own family.

His eldest son, George Jay Gould (b. 1864), was prominent also as an owner and manager of railways, and became president of the Little Rock & Fort Smith railway (1888), the St Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern railway (1893), the International & Great Northern railway (1893), the Missouri Pacific railway (1893), the Texas & Pacific railway (1893), and the Manhattan Railway Company (1892); he was also vice-president and director of the Western Union Telegraph Company. It was under his control that the Wabash system became transcontinental and secured an Atlantic port at Baltimore; and it was he who brought about a friendly alliance between the Gould and the Rockefeller interests.

The eldest daughter, Helen Miller Gould (b. 1868), became widely known as a philanthropist, and particularly for her generous gifts to American army hospitals in the war with Spain in 1898 and for her many contributions to New York University, to which she gave $250,000 for a library in 1895 and $100,000 for a Hall of Fame in 1900.

GOUNOD, CHARLES FRANÇOIS (1818-1893), French composer, was born in Paris on the 17th of June 1818, the son of F. L. Gounod, a talented painter. He entered the Paris Conservatoire in 1836, studied under Reicha, Halévy and Lesueur, and won the “Grand Prix de Rome” in 1839. While residing in the Eternal City he devoted much of his time to the study of sacred music, notably to the works of Palestrina and Bach. In 1843 he went to Vienna, where a “requiem” of his composition was performed. On his return to Paris he tried in vain to find a publisher for some songs he had written in Rome. Having become organist to the chapel of the “Missions Étrangères,” he turned his thoughts and mind to religious music. At that time he even contemplated the idea of entering into holy orders. His thoughts were, however, turned to more mundane matters when, through the intervention of Madame Viardot, the celebrated singer, he received a commission to compose an opera on a text by Émile Augier for the Académie Nationale de Musique. Sapho, the work in question, was produced in 1851, and if its success was not very great, it at least sufficed to bring the composer’s name to the fore. Some critics appeared to consider this work as evidence of a fresh departure in the style of dramatic music, and Adolphe Adam, the composer, who was also a musical critic, attributed to Gounod the wish to revive the system of musical declamation invented by Gluck. The fact was that Sapho differed in some respects from the operatic works of the period, and was to a certain extent in advance of the times. When it was revived at the Paris Opéra in 1884, several additions were made by the composer to the original score, not altogether to its advantage, and Sapho once more failed to attract the public. Gounod’s second dramatic attempt was again in connexion with a classical subject, and consisted in some choruses written for Ulysse, a tragedy by Ponsard, played at the Théâtre Français in 1852, when the orchestra was conducted by Offenbach. The composer’s next opera, La Nonne sanglante, given at the Paris Opéra in 1854, was a failure.

Goethe’s Faust had for years exercised a strong fascination over Gounod, and he at last determined to turn it to operatic account. The performance at a Paris theatre of a drama on the same subject delayed the production of his opera for a time. In the meanwhile he wrote in a few months the music for an operatic version of Molière’s comedy, Le Médecin malgré lui, which was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique in 1858. Berlioz well described this charming little work when he wrote of it, “Everything is pretty, piquant, fluent, in this ‘opéra comique’; there is nothing superfluous and nothing wanting.” The first performance of Faust took place at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 19th of March 1859. Goethe’s masterpiece had already been utilized for operatic purposes by various composers, the most celebrated of whom was Spohr. The subject had also inspired Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, to mention only a few, and the enormous success of Gounod’s opera did not deter Boito from writing his Mefistofele. Faust is without doubt the most popular French opera of the second half of the 19th century. Its success has been universal, and nowhere has it achieved greater vogue than in the land of Goethe. For years it remained the recognized type of modern French opera. At the time of its production in Paris it was scarcely appreciated according to its merits. Its style was too novel, and its luscious harmonies did not altogether suit the palates of those dilettanti who still looked upon Rossini as the incarnation of music. Times have indeed changed, and French composers have followed the road opened by Gounod, and have further developed the form of the lyrical drama, adopting the theories of Wagner in a manner suitable to their national temperament. Although in its original version Faust contained spoken dialogue, and was divided into set pieces according to custom, yet it differed greatly from the operas of the past. Gounod had not studied the works of German masters such as Mendelssohn and Schumann in vain, and although his own style is eminently Gallic, yet it cannot be denied that much of its charm emanates from a certain poetic sentimentality which seems to have a Teutonic origin. Certainly no music such as his had previously been produced by any French composer. Auber was a gay trifler, scattering his bright effusions with absolute insouciance, teeming with melodious ideas, but lacking depth. Berlioz, a musical Titan, wrestled against fate with a superhuman energy, and, Jove-like, subjugated his hearers with his thunderbolts. It was, however, reserved for Gounod to introduce la note tendre, to sing the tender passion in accents soft and languorous. The musical language employed in Faust was new and fascinating, and it was soon to be adopted by many other French composers, certain of its idioms thereby becoming hackneyed. Gounod’s opera was given in London in 1863, when its success, at first doubtful, became enormous, and it was heard concurrently at Covent Garden and Her Majesty’s theatres. Since then it has never lost its popularity.

Although the success of Faust in Paris was at first not so great as might have been expected, yet it gradually increased and set the seal on Gounod’s fame. The fortunate composer now experienced no difficulty in finding an outlet for his works, and the succeeding decade is a specially important one in his career. The opera from his pen which came after Faust was Philémon et Baucis, a setting of the mythological tale in which the composer followed the traditions of the Opéra Comique, employing spoken dialogue, while not abdicating the individuality of his own style. This work was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique in 1860. It has repeatedly been heard in London. La Reine de Saba, a four-act opera, produced at the Grand Opéra on the 28th of February 1862, was altogether a far more ambitious work. For some reason it did not meet 286 with success, although the score contains some of Gounod’s choicest inspirations, notably the well-known air, “Lend me your aid.” La Reine de Saba was adapted for the English stage under the name of Irene. The non-success of this work proved a great disappointment to Gounod, who, however, set to work again, and this time with better results, Mireille, the fruit of his labours, being given for the first time at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 19th of March 1864. Founded upon the Mireio of the Provençal poet Mistral, Mireille contains much charming and characteristic music. The libretto seems to have militated against its success, and although several revivals have taken place and various modifications and alterations have been made in the score, yet Mireille has never enjoyed a very great vogue. Certain portions of this opera have, however, been popularized in the concert-room. La Colombe, a little opera in two acts without pretension, deserves mention here. It was originally heard at Baden in 1860, and subsequently at the Opéra Comique. A suavely melodious entr’acte from this little work has survived and been repeatedly performed.

Animated with the desire to give a pendant to his Faust, Gounod now sought for inspiration from Shakespeare, and turned his attention to Romeo and Juliet. Here, indeed, was a subject particularly well calculated to appeal to a composer who had so eminently qualified himself to be considered the musician of the tender passion. The operatic version of the Shakespearean tragedy was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 27th of April 1867. It is generally considered as being the composer’s second best opera. Some people have even placed it on the same level as Faust, but this verdict has not found general acceptance. Gounod himself is stated to have expressed his opinion of the relative value of the two operas enigmatically by saying, “Faust is the oldest, but I was younger; Roméo is the youngest, but I was older.” The luscious strains wedded to the love scenes, if at times somewhat cloying, are generally in accord with the situations, often irresistibly fascinating, while always absolutely individual. The success of Roméo in Paris was great from the outset, and eventually this work was transferred to the Grand Opéra, after having for some time formed part of the répertoire of the Opéra Comique. In London it was not until the part of Romeo was sung by Jean de Reszke that this opera obtained any real hold upon the English public.

After having so successfully sought for inspiration from Molière, Goethe and Shakespeare, Gounod now turned to another famous dramatist, and selected Pierre Corneille’s Polyeucte as the subject of his next opera. Some years were, however, to elapse before this work was given to the public. The Franco-German War had broken out, and Gounod was compelled to take refuge in London, where he composed the “biblical elegy” Gallia for the inauguration of the Royal Albert Hall. During his stay in London Gounod composed a great deal and wrote a number of songs to English words, many of which have attained an enduring popularity, such as “Maid of Athens,” “There is a green hill far away,” “Oh that we two were maying,” “The fountain mingles with the river.” His sojourn in London was not altogether pleasant, as he was embroiled in lawsuits with publishers. On Gounod’s return to Paris he hurriedly set to music an operatic version of Alfred de Vigny’s Cinq-Mars, which was given at the Opéra Comique on the 5th of April 1877 (and in London in 1900), without obtaining much success. Polyeucte, his much-cherished work, appeared at the Grand Opéra the following year on the 7th of October, and did not meet with a better fate. Neither was Gounod more fortunate with Le Tribut de Zamora, his last opera, which, given on the same stage in 1881, speedily vanished, never to reappear. In his later dramatic works he had, unfortunately, made no attempt to keep up with the times, preferring to revert to old-fashioned methods.

The genius of the great composer was, however, destined to assert itself in another field—that of sacred music. His friend Camille Saint-Saëns, in a volume entitled Portraits et Souvenirs, writes:

Saint-Saëns, indeed, has formulated the opinion that the three above-mentioned works will survive all the master’s operas. Among the many masses composed by Gounod at the outset of his career, the best is the Messe de Sainte Cécile, written in 1855. He also wrote the Messe du Sacré Cœur (1876) and the Messe à la mémoire de Jeanne d’Arc (1887). This last work offers certain peculiarities, being written for solos, chorus, organ, eight trumpets, three trombones, and harps. In style it has a certain affinity with Palestrina. The Redemption, which seems to have acquired a permanent footing in Great Britain, was produced at the Birmingham Festival of 1882. It was styled a sacred trilogy, and was dedicated to Queen Victoria. The score is prefixed by a commentary written by the composer, in which the scope of the oratorio is explained. It cannot be said that Gounod has altogether risen to the magnitude of his task. The music of The Redemption bears the unmistakable imprint of the composer’s hand, and contains many beautiful thoughts, but the work in its entirety is not exempt from monotony. Mors et vita, a sacred trilogy dedicated to Pope Leo XIII., was also produced for the first time in Birmingham at the Festival of 1885. This work is divided into three parts, “Mors,” “Judicium,” “Vita.” The first consists of a Requiem, the second depicts the Judgment, the third Eternal Life. Although quite equal, if not superior to The Redemption, Mors et vita has not obtained similar success.

Gounod was a great worker, an indefatigable writer, and it would occupy too much space to attempt even an incomplete catalogue of his compositions. Besides the works already mentioned may be named two symphonies which were played during the ’fifties, but have long since fallen into neglect. Symphonic music was not Gounod’s forte, and the French master evidently recognized the fact, for he made no further attempts in this style. The incidental music he wrote to the dramas Les Deux Reines and Jeanne d’Arc must not be forgotten. He also attempted to set Molière’s comedy, Georges Dandin, to music, keeping to the original prose. This work has never been brought out. Gounod composed a large number of songs, many of which are very beautiful. One of the vocal pieces that have contributed most to his popularity is the celebrated Meditation on the First Prelude of Bach, more widely known as the Ave Maria. The idea of fitting a melody to the Prelude of Bach was original, and it must be admitted that in this case the experiment was successful.

Gounod died at St Cloud on the 18th of October 1893. His influence on French music was immense, though during the last years of the 19th century it was rather counterbalanced by that of Wagner. Whatever may be the verdict of posterity, it is unlikely that the quality of individuality will be denied to Gounod. To be the composer of Faust is alone a sufficient title to lasting fame.

GOURD, a name given to various plants of the order Cucurbitaceae, especially those belonging to the genus Cucurbita, monoecious trailing herbs of annual duration, with long succulent stems furnished with tendrils, and large, rough, palmately-lobed leaves; the flowers are generally large and of a bright yellow or orange colour, the barren ones with the stamens united; the fertile are followed by the large succulent fruit that gives the gourds their chief economic value. Many varieties of Cucurbita are under cultivation in tropical and temperate climates, especially in southern Asia; but it is extremely difficult to refer them to definite specific groups, on account of the facility with which they hybridize; while it is very doubtful whether any of the original forms now exist in the wild state. Charles Naudin, who made a careful and interesting series of observations upon this genus, came to the conclusion that all varieties known in European gardens might be referred to six original species; probably three, or at most four, have furnished the edible kinds in ordinary cultivation. Adopting the specific 287 names usually given to the more familiar forms, the most important of the gourds, from an economic point of view, is perhaps C. maxima, the Potiron Jaune of the French, the red and yellow gourd of British gardeners (fig. 6), the spheroidal fruit of which is remarkable for its enormous size: the colour of the somewhat rough rind varies from white to bright yellow, while in some kinds it remains green; the fleshy interior is of a deep yellow or orange tint. This valuable gourd is grown extensively in southern Asia and Europe. In Turkey and Asia Minor it yields, at some periods of the year, an important article of diet to the people; immense quantities are sold in the markets of Constantinople, where in the winter the heaps of one variety with a white rind are described as resembling mounds of snowballs. The yellow kind attains occasionally a weight of upwards of 240 ℔. It grows well in Central Europe and the United States, while in the south of England it will produce its gigantic fruit in perfection in hot summers. The yellow flesh of this gourd and its numerous varieties yields a considerable amount of nutriment, and is the more valuable as the fruit can be kept, even in warm climates, for a long time. In France and in the East it is much used in soups and ragouts, while simply boiled it forms a substitute for other table vegetables; the taste has been compared to that of a young carrot. In some countries the larger kinds are employed as cattle food. The seeds yield by expression a large quantity of a bland oil, which is used for the same purposes as that of the poppy and olive. The “mammoth” gourds of English and American gardeners (known in America as squashes) belong to this species. The pumpkin (summer squash of America) is Cucurbita Pepo. Some of the varieties of C. maxima and Pepo contain a considerable quantity of sugar, amounting in the sweetest kinds to 4 or 5%, and in the hot plains of Hungary efforts have been made to make use of them as a commercial source of sugar. The young shoots of both these large gourds may be given to cattle, and admit of being eaten as a green vegetable when boiled. The vegetable marrow is a variety (ovifera) of C. Pepo. Many smaller gourds are cultivated in India and other hot climates, and some have been introduced into English gardens, rather for the beauty of their fruit and foliage than for their esculent qualities. Among these is C. Pepo var. aurantia, the orange gourd, bearing a spheroidal fruit, like a large orange in form and colour; in Britain it is generally too bitter to be palatable, though applied to culinary purposes in Turkey and the Levant. C. Pepo var. pyriformis and var. verrucosa, the warted gourds, are likewise occasionally eaten, especially in the immature state; and C. moschata (musk melon) is very extensively cultivated throughout India by the natives, the yellow flesh being cooked and eaten.

The bottle-gourds are placed in a separate genus, Lagenaria, chiefly differing from Cucurbita in the anthers being free instead of adherent. The bottle-gourd properly so-called, L. vulgaris, is a climbing plant with downy, heart-shaped leaves and beautiful white flowers: the remarkable fruit (figs. 1-5) first begins to grow in the form of an elongated cylinder, but gradually widens towards the extremity, until, when ripe, it resembles a flask with a narrow neck and large rounded bulb; it sometimes attains a length of 7 ft. When ripe, the pulp is removed from the neck, and the interior cleared by leaving water standing in it; the woody rind that remains is used as a bottle: or the lower part is cut off and cleared out, forming a basin-like vessel applied to the same domestic purposes as the calabash (Crescentia) of the West Indies: the smaller varieties, divided lengthwise, form spoons. The ripe fruit is apt to be bitter and cathartic, but while immature it is eaten by the Arabs and Turks. When about the size of a small cucumber, it is stuffed with rice and minced meat, flavoured with pepper, onions, &c., and then boiled, forming a favourite dish with Eastern epicures. The elongated snake-gourds of India and China (Trichosanthes) are used in curries and stews.

All the true gourds have a tendency to secrete the cathartic principle colocynthin, and in many varieties of Cucurbita and the allied genera it is often elaborated to such an extent as to render them unwholesome, or even poisonous. The seeds of several species therefore possess some anthelmintic properties; those of the common pumpkin are frequently administered in America as a vermifuge.

The cultivation of gourds began far beyond the dawn of history, and the esculent species have become so modified by culture that the original plants from which they have descended can no longer be traced. The abundance of varieties in India would seem to indicate that part of Asia as the birthplace of the present edible forms; but some appear to have been cultivated in all the hotter regions of that continent, and in North Africa, from the earliest ages, while the Romans were familiar with at least certain kinds of Cucurbita, and with the bottle-gourd. Cucurbita Pepo, the source of many of the American forms, is probably a native of that continent.

GOURGAUD, GASPAR, Baron (1783-1852), French soldier, was born at Versailles on the 14th of September 1783; his father was a musician of the royal chapel. At school he showed talent in mathematical studies and accordingly entered the artillery. In 1802 he became junior lieutenant, and thereafter served with credit in the campaigns of 1803-1805, being wounded at Austerlitz. He was present at the siege of Saragossa in 1808, but returned to service in Central Europe and took part in nearly all the battles of the Danubian campaign of 1809. In 1811 he was chosen to inspect and report on the fortifications of Danzig. Thereafter he became one of the ordnance officers attached to the emperor, whom he followed closely through the Russian campaign of 1812; he was one of the first to enter the Kremlin and discovered there a quantity of gunpowder which might have been used for the destruction of Napoleon. For his services in this campaign he received the title of baron, and became first ordnance officer. In the campaign of 1813 in Saxony he further evinced his courage and prowess, especially at Leipzig and Hanau; but it was in the first battle of 1814, near to Brienne, that he rendered the most signal service by killing the leader of a small band of Cossacks who were riding furiously towards Napoleon’s tent. Wounded at the battle of Montmirail, he yet recovered in time to share in several of the conflicts which followed, distinguishing himself especially at Laon and Reims. Though enrolled among the royal guards of Louis XVIII. in the summer of 1814, he yet embraced the cause of Napoleon during the Hundred Days (1815), was named general and aide-de-camp by the emperor, and fought at Waterloo.

After the second abdication of the emperor (June 22nd, 1815) Gourgaud retired with him and a few other companions to Rochefort. It was to him that Napoleon entrusted the letter of appeal to the prince regent for an asylum in England. Gourgaud set off in H.M.S. “Slaney,” but was not allowed to land 288 in England. He determined to share Napoleon’s exile and sailed with him on H.M.S. “Northumberland” to St Helena. The ship’s secretary, John R. Glover, has left an entertaining account of some of Gourgaud’s gasconnades at table. His extreme sensitiveness and vanity soon brought him into collision with Las Cases and Montholon at Longwood. The former he styles in his journal a “Jesuit” and a scribbler who went thither in order to become famous. With Montholon, his senior in rank, the friction became so acute that he challenged him to a duel, for which he suffered a sharp rebuke from Napoleon. Tiring of the life at Longwood and the many slights which he suffered from Napoleon, he desired to depart, but before he could sail he spent two months with Colonel Basil Jackson, whose account of him throws much light on his character, as also on the “policy” adopted by the exiles at Longwood. In England he was gained over by members of the Opposition and thereafter made common cause with O’Meara and other detractors of Sir Hudson Lowe, for whose character he had expressed high esteem to Basil Jackson. He soon published his Campagne de 1815, in the preparation of which he had had some help from Napoleon; but Gourgaud’s Journal de Ste-Hélène was not destined to be published till the year 1899. Entering the arena of letters, he wrote, or collaborated in, two well-known critiques. The first was a censure of Count P. de Ségur’s work on the campaign of 1812, with the result that he fought a duel with that officer and wounded him. He also sharply criticized Sir Walter Scott’s Life of Napoleon. He returned to active service in the army in 1830; and in 1840 proceeded with others to St Helena to bring back the remains of Napoleon to France. He became a deputy to the Legislative Assembly in 1849; he died in 1852.

GOURKO, JOSEPH VLADIMIROVICH, Count (1828-1901), Russian general, was born, of Lithuanian extraction, on the 15th of November 1828. He was educated in the imperial corps of pages, entered the hussars of the imperial bodyguard as sub-lieutenant in 1846, became captain in 1857, adjutant to the emperor in 1860, colonel in 1861, commander of the 4th Hussar regiment of Mariupol in 1866, and major-general of the emperor’s suite in 1867. He subsequently commanded the grenadier regiment, and in 1873 the 1st brigade, 2nd division, of the cavalry of the guard. Although he took part in the Crimean War, being stationed at Belbek, his claim to distinction is due to his services in the Turkish war of 1877. He led the van of the Russian invasion, took Trnovo on the 7th July, crossed the Balkans by the Hain Bogaz pass, debouching near Hainkioi, and, notwithstanding considerable resistance, captured Uflani, Maglish and Kazanlyk; on the 18th of July he attacked Shipka, which was evacuated by the Turks on the following day. Thus within sixteen days of crossing the Danube Gourko had secured three Balkan passes and created a panic at Constantinople. He then made a series of successful reconnaissances of the Tunja valley, cut the railway in two places, occupied Stara Zagora (Turkish, Eski Zagra) and Nova Zagora (Yeni Zagra), checked the advance of Suleiman’s army, and returned again over the Balkans. In October he was appointed commander of the allied cavalry, and attacked the Plevna line of communication to Orkhanie with a large mixed force, captured Gorni-Dubnik, Telische and Vratza, and, in the middle of November, Orkhanie itself. Plevna was isolated, and after its fall in December Gourko led the way amidst snow and ice over the Balkans to the fertile valley beyond, totally defeated Suleiman, and occupied Sophia, Philippopolis and Adrianople, the armistice at the end of January 1878 stopping further operations (see Russo-Turkish Wars). Gourko was made a count, and decorated with the 2nd class of St George and other orders. In 1879-1880 he was governor of St Petersburg, and from 1883 to 1894 governor-general of Poland. He died on the 29th of January 1901.

GOURMET, a French term for one who takes a refined and critical, or even merely theoretical pleasure in good cooking and the delights of the table. The word has not the disparaging sense attached to the Fr. gourmand, to whom the practical pleasure of good eating is the chief end. The O. Fr. groumet or gromet meant a servant, or shop-boy, especially one employed in a wine-seller’s shop, hence an expert taster of wines, from which the modern usage has developed. The etymology of gourmet is obscure; it may be ultimately connected with the English “groom” (q.v.). The origin of gourmand is unknown. In English, in the form “grummet,” the word was early applied to a cabin or ship’s boy. Ships of the Cinque Ports were obliged to carry one “grummet”; thus in a charter of 1229 (quoted in the New English Dictionary) it is laid down servitia inde debita Domino Regi, xxi. naves, et in qualibet nave xxi. homines, cum uno gartione qui dicitur gromet.

GOUROCK, a police burgh and watering-place of Renfrewshire, Scotland, on the southern shore of the Firth of Clyde, 3¼ m. W. by N. of Greenock by the Caledonian railway. Pop. (1901) 5261. It is partly situated on a fine bay affording good anchorage, for which it is largely resorted to by the numerous yacht clubs of the Clyde. The extension of the railway from Greenock (in 1889) to the commodious pier, with a tunnel 11⁄3 m. long, the longest in Scotland, affords great facilities for travel to the ports of the Firth, the sea lochs on the southern Highland coast and the Crinan Canal. The eminence called Barrhill (480 ft. high) divides the town into two parts, the eastern known as Kempoch, the western as Ashton. Near Kempoch point is a monolith of mica-schist, 6 ft. high, called “Granny Kempoch,” which the superstitious of other days regarded as possessing influence over the winds, and which was the scene, in 1662, of certain rites that led to the celebrants being burned as witches. Gamble Institute (named after the founder) contains halls, recreation rooms, a public library and baths. It is said that Gourock was the first place on the Clyde where herrings were cured. There is tramway communication with Greenock and Ashton. About 3 m. S.W. there stands on the shore the familiar beacon of the Cloch. Gourock became a burgh of barony in 1694.

GOURVILLE, JEAN HERAULD (1625-1703), French adventurer, was born at La Rochefoucauld. At the age of eighteen he entered the house of La Rochefoucauld as a servant, and in 1646 became secretary to François de la Rochefoucauld, author of the Maximes. Resourceful and quick-witted, he rendered services to his master during the Fronde, in his intrigues with the parliament, the court or the princes. In these negotiations he made the acquaintance of Condé, whom he wished to help to escape from the château of Vincennes; of Mazarin, for whom he negotiated the reconciliation with the princes; and of Nicolas Fouquet. After the Fronde he engaged in financial affairs, thanks to Fouquet. In 1658 he farmed the taille in Guienne. He bought depreciated rentes and had them raised to their nominal value by the treasury; he extorted gifts from the financiers for his protection, being Fouquet’s confidant in many operations of which he shared the profits. In three years he accumulated an enormous fortune, still further increased by his unfailing good fortune at cards, playing even with the king. He was involved in the trial of Fouquet, and in April 1663 was condemned to death for peculation and embezzlement of public funds; but escaping, was executed in effigy. He sent a valet one night to take the effigy down from the gallows in the court of the Palais de Justice, and then fled the country. He remained five years abroad, being excepted in 1665 from the amnesty accorded by Louis XIV. to the condemned financiers. Having returned secretly to France, he entered the service of Condé, who, unable to meet his creditors, had need of a clever manager to put his affairs in order. In this way he was able to reappear at court, to assist at the campaigns of the war with Holland, and to offer himself for all the delicate negotiations 289 for his master or the king. He received diplomatic missions in Germany, in Holland, and especially in Spain, though it was only in 1694, that he was freed from the condemnation pronounced against him by the chamber of justice. From 1696 he fell ill and withdrew to his estate, where he dictated to his secretary, in four months and a half, his Mémoires, an important source for the history of his time. In spite of several errors, introduced purposely, they give a clear idea of the life and morals of a financier of the age of Fouquet, and throw light on certain points of the diplomatic history. They were first published in 1724.

GOUT, the name rather vaguely given, in medicine, to a constitutional disorder which manifests itself by inflammation of the joints, with sometimes deposition of urates of soda, and also by morbid changes in various important organs. The term gout, which was first used about the end of the 13th century, is derived through the Fr. goutte from the Lat. gutta, a drop, in allusion to the old pathological doctrine of the dropping of a morbid material from the blood within the joints. The disease was known and described by the ancient Greek physicians under various terms, which, however, appear to have been applied by them alike to rheumatism and gout. The general term arthritis (ἄρθρον, a joint) was employed when many joints were the seat of inflammation; while in those instances where the disease was limited to one part the terms used bore reference to such locality; hence podagra (ποδάγρα, from πούς, the foot, and ἅγρα, a seizure), chiragra (χείρ, the hand), gonagra (γόνυ, the knee), &c.

Hippocrates in his Aphorisms speaks of gout as occurring most commonly in spring and autumn, and mentions the fact that women are less liable to it than men. He also gives directions as to treatment. Celsus gives a similar account of the disease. Galen regarded gout as an unnatural accumulation of humours in a part, and the chalk-stones as the concretions of these, and he attributed the disease to over-indulgence and luxury. Gout is alluded to in the works of Ovid and Pliny, and Seneca, in his 95th epistle, mentions the prevalence of gout among the Roman ladies of his day as one of the results of their high living and debauchery. Lucian, in his Tragopodagra, gives an amusing account of the remedies employed for the cure of gout.

In all times this disease has engaged a large share of the attention of physicians, from its wide prevalence and from the amount of suffering which it entails. Sydenham, the famous English physician of the 17th century, wrote an important treatise on the subject, and his description of the gouty paroxysm, all the more vivid from his having himself been afflicted with the disease for thirty-four years, is still quoted by writers as the most graphic and exhaustive account of the symptomatology of gout. Subsequently Cullen, recognizing gout as capable of manifesting itself in various ways, divided the disease into regular gout, which affects the joints only, and irregular gout, where the gouty disposition exhibits itself in other forms; and the latter variety he subdivided into atonic gout, where the most prominent symptoms are throughout referable to the stomach and alimentary canal; retrocedent gout, where the inflammatory attack suddenly disappears from an affected joint and serious disturbance takes place in some internal organ, generally the stomach or heart; and misplaced gout, where from the first the disease does not appear externally, but reveals itself by an inflammatory attack of some internal part. Dr Garrod, one of the most eminent authorities on gout, adopted a division somewhat similar to, though simpler than that of Cullen, namely, regular gout, which affects the joints alone, and is either acute or chronic, and irregular gout, affecting non-articular tissues, or disturbing the functions of various organs.

It is often stated that the attack of gout comes on without any previous warning; but, while this is true in many instances, the reverse is probably as frequently the case, and the premonitory symptoms, especially in those who have previously suffered from the disease, may be sufficiently precise to indicate the impending seizure. Among the more common of these may be mentioned marked disorders of the digestive organs, with a feeble and capricious appetite, flatulence and pain after eating, and uneasiness in the right side in the region of the liver. A remarkable tendency to gnashing of the teeth is sometimes observed. This symptom was first noticed by Dr Graves, who connected it with irritation in the urinary organs, which also is present as one of the premonitory indications of the gouty attack. Various forms of nervous disturbance also present themselves in the form of general discomfort, extreme irritability of temper, and various perverted sensations, such as that of numbness and coldness in the limbs. These symptoms may persist for many days and then undergo amelioration immediately before the impending paroxysm. On the night of the attack the patient retires to rest apparently well, but about two or three o’clock in the morning awakes with a painful feeling in the foot, most commonly in the ball of the great toe, but it may be in the instep or heel, or in the thumb. With the pain there often occurs a distinct shivering followed by feverishness. The pain soon becomes of the most agonizing character: in the words of Sydenham, “now it is a violent stretching and tearing of the ligaments, now it is a gnawing pain, and now a pressure and tightening; so exquisite and lively meanwhile is the part affected that it cannot bear the weight of the bedclothes, nor the jar of a person walking in the room.”

When the affected part is examined it is found to be swollen and of a deep red hue. The superjacent skin is tense and glistening, and the surrounding veins are more or less distended. After a few hours there is a remission of the pain, slight perspiration takes place, and the patient may fall asleep. The pain may continue moderate during the day but returns as night advances, and the patient goes through a similar experience of suffering to that of the previous night, followed with a like abatement towards morning. These nocturnal exacerbations occur with greater or less severity during the continuance of the attack, which generally lasts for a week or ten days. As the symptoms decline the swelling and tenderness of the affected joint abate, but the skin over it pits on pressure for a time, and with this there is often associated slight desquamation of the cuticle. During the attacks there is much constitutional disturbance. The patient is restless and extremely irritable, and suffers from cramp in the limbs and from dyspepsia, thirst and constipation. The urine is scanty and high-coloured, with a copious deposit, consisting chiefly of urates. During the continuance of the symptoms the inflammation may leave the one foot and affect the other, or both may suffer at the same time. After the attack is over the patient feels quite well and fancies himself better than he had been for a long time before; hence the once popular notion that a fit of the gout was capable of removing all other ailments. Any such idea, however, is sadly belied in the experience of most sufferers from this disease. It is rare that the first is the only attack of gout, and another is apt to occur within a year, although by care and treatment it may be warded off. The disease, however, undoubtedly tends to take a firmer hold on the constitution and to return. In the earlier recurrences the same joints as were formerly the seat of the gouty inflammation suffer again, but in course of time others become implicated, until in advanced cases scarcely any articulation escapes, and the disease thus becomes chronic. It is to be noticed that when gout assumes this form the frequently recurring attacks are usually attended with less pain than the earlier ones, but their disastrous effects are evidenced alike by the disturbance of various important organs, especially the stomach, liver, kidneys and heart, and by the remarkable changes which take place in the joints from the formation of the so-called chalk-stones or tophi. These deposits, which are highly characteristic of gout, appear at first to take place in the form of a semifluid material, consisting for the most part of urate of soda, which gradually becomes more dense, and ultimately quite hard. When any quantity of this is deposited in the structures of a joint the effect is to produce stiffening, and, as deposits appear to take place to a greater or less amount in connexion with every 290 attack, permanent thickening and deformity of the parts is apt to be the consequence. The extent of this depends, of course, on the amount of the deposits, which, however, would seem to be in no necessary relation to the severity of the attack, being in some cases even of chronic gout so slight as to be barely appreciable externally, but on the other hand occasionally causing great enlargement of the joints, and fixing them in a flexed or extended position which renders them entirely useless. Dr Garrod describes the appearance of a hand in an extreme case of this kind, and likens its shape to a bundle of French carrots with their heads forward, the nails corresponding to the stalks. Any of the joints may be thus affected, but most commonly those of the hands and feet. The deposits take place in other structures besides those of joints, such as along the course of tendons, underneath the skin and periosteum, in the sclerotic coat of the eye, and especially on the cartilages of the external ear. When largely deposited in joints an abscess sometimes forms, the skin gives way, and the concretion is exposed. Sir Thomas Watson quotes a case of this kind where the patient when playing at cards was accustomed to chalk the score of the game upon the table with his gouty knuckles.

The recognition of what is termed irregular gout is less easy than that form above described, where the disease gives abundant external evidence of its presence; but that other parts than joints suffer from gouty attacks is beyond question. The diagnosis may often be made in cases where in an attack of ordinary gout the disease suddenly leaves the affected joints and some new series of symptoms arises. It has been often observed when cold has been applied to an inflamed joint that the pain and inflammation in the part ceased, but that some sudden and alarming seizure referable to the stomach, brain, heart or lungs supervened. Such attacks, which correspond to what is termed by Cullen retrocedent gout, often terminate favourably, more especially if the disease again returns to the joints. Further, the gouty nature of some long-continued internal or cutaneous disorder may be rendered apparent by its disappearance on the outbreak of the paroxysm in the joints. Gout, when of long standing, is often found associated with degenerative changes in the heart and large arteries, the liver, and especially the kidneys, which are apt to assume the contracted granular condition characteristic of one of the forms of Bright’s disease. A variety of urinary calculus—the uric acid—formed by concretions of this substance in the kidneys is a not unfrequent occurrence in connexion with gout; hence the well-known association of this disease and gravel.

The pathology of gout is discussed in the article on Metabolic Diseases. Many points, however, still remain unexplained. As remarked by Trousseau, “the production in excess of uric acid and urates is a pathological phenomenon inherent like all others in the disease; and like all the others it is dominated by a specific cause, which we know only by its effects, and which we term the gouty diathesis.” This subject of diathesis (habit, or organic predisposition of individuals), which is regarded as an essential element in the pathology of gout, naturally suggests the question as to whether, besides being inherited, such a peculiarity may also be acquired, and this leads to a consideration of the causes which are recognized as influential in favouring the occurrence of this disease.

It is beyond dispute that gout is in a marked degree hereditary, fully more than half the number of cases being, according to Sir C. Scudamore and Dr Garrod, of this character. But it is no less certain that there are habits and modes of life the observance of which may induce the disease even where no hereditary tendencies can be traced, and the avoidance of which may, on the other hand, go far towards weakening or neutralizing the influence of inherited liability. Gout is said to affect the sedentary more readily than the active. If, however, inadequate exercise be combined with a luxurious manner of living, with habitual over-indulgence in animal food and rich dishes, and especially in alcoholic beverages, then undoubtedly the chief factors in the production of the disease are present.

Much has been written upon the relative influence of various forms of alcoholic drinks in promoting the development of gout. It is generally stated that fermented are more injurious than distilled liquors, and that, in particular, the stronger wines, such as port, sherry and madeira, are much more potent in their gout-producing action than the lighter class of wines, such as hock, moselle, &c., while malt liquors are fully as hurtful as strong wines. It seems quite as probable, however, that over-indulgence in any form of alcohol, when associated with the other conditions already adverted to, will have very much the same effect in developing gout. The comparative absence of gout in countries where spirituous liquors are chiefly used, such as Scotland, is cited as showing their relatively slight effect in encouraging that disease; but it is to be noticed that in such countries there is on the whole a less marked tendency to excess in the other pleasures of the table, which in no degree less than alcohol are chargeable with inducing the gouty habit. Gout is not a common disease among the poor and labouring classes, and when it does occur may often be connected even in them with errors in living. It is not very rare to meet gout in butlers, coachmen, &c., who are apt to live luxuriously while leading comparatively easy lives.

Gout, it must ever be borne in mind, may also affect persons who observe the strictest temperance in living, and whose only excesses are in the direction of over-work, either physical or intellectual. Many of the great names in history in all times have had their existence embittered by this malady, and have died from its effects. The influence of hereditary tendency may often be traced in such instances, and is doubtless called into activity by the depressing consequences of over-work. It may, notwithstanding, be affirmed as generally true that those who lead regular lives, and are moderate in the use of animal food and alcoholic drinks, or still better abstain from the latter altogether, are less likely to be the victims of gout even where an undoubted inherited tendency exists.

Gout is more common in mature age than in the earlier years of life, the greatest number of cases in one decennial period being between the ages of thirty and forty, next between twenty and thirty, and thirdly between forty and fifty. It may occasionally affect very young persons; such cases are generally regarded as hereditary, but, so far as diet is concerned, it has to be remembered that their home life has probably been a predisposing cause. After middle life gout rarely appears for the first time. Women are much less the subjects of gout than men, apparently from their less exposure to the influences (excepting, of course, that of heredity) which tend to develop the disease, and doubtless also from the differing circumstances of their physical constitution. It most frequently appears in females after the cessation of the menses. Persons exposed to the influence of lead poisoning, such as plumbers, painters, &c., are apt to suffer from gout; and it would seem that impregnation of the system with this metal markedly interferes with the uric acid excreting function of the kidneys.

Attacks of gout are readily excited in those predisposed to the disease. Exposure to cold, disorders of digestion, fatigue, and irritation or injuries of particular joints will often precipitate the gouty paroxysm.

With respect to the treatment of gout the greatest variety of opinion has prevailed and practice been pursued, from the numerous quaint nostrums detailed by Lucian to the “expectant” or do-nothing system recommended by Sydenham. But gout, although, as has been shown, a malady of a most severe and intractable character, may nevertheless be successfully dealt with by appropriate medicinal and hygienic measures. The general plan of treatment can be here only briefly indicated. During the acute attack the affected part should be kept at perfect rest, and have applied to it warm opiate fomentations or poultices, or, what answers quite as well, be enveloped in cotton wool covered in with oil silk. The diet of the patient should be light, without animal food or stimulants. The administration of some simple laxative will be of service, as well as the free use of alkaline diuretics, such as the bicarbonate or acetate of potash. The medicinal agent most relied on for the relief of pain is colchicum, which manifestly exercises a powerful 291 action on the disease. This drug (Colchicum autumnale), which is believed to correspond to the hermodactyl of the ancients, has proved of such efficacy in modifying the attacks that, as observed by Dr Garrod, “we may safely assert that colchicum possesses as specific a control over the gouty inflammation as cinchona barks or their alkaloids over intermittent fever.” It is usually administered in the form of the wine in doses of 10 to 30 drops every four or six hours, or in pill as the acetous extract (gr. ½-gr. i.). The effect of colchicum in subduing the pain of gout is generally so prompt and marked that it is unnecessary to have recourse to opiates; but its action requires to be carefully watched by the physician from its well-known nauseating and depressing consequences, which, should they appear, render the suspension of the drug necessary. Otherwise the remedy may be continued in gradually diminishing doses for some days after the disappearance of the gouty inflammation. Should gout give evidence of its presence in an irregular form by attacking internal organs, besides the medicinal treatment above mentioned, the use of frictions and mustard applications to the joints is indicated with the view of exciting its appearance there. When gout has become chronic, colchicum, although of less service than in acute gout, is yet valuable, particularly when the inflammatory attacks recur. More benefit, however, appears to be derived from potassium iodide, guaiacum, the alkalis potash and lithia, and from the administration of aspirin and sodium salicylate. Salicylate of menthol is an effective local application, painted on and covered with a gutta-percha bandage. Lithia was strongly recommended by Dr Garrod from its solvent action upon the urates. It is usually administered in the form of the carbonate (gr. v., freely diluted).

The treatment and regimen to be employed in the intervals of the gouty attacks are of the highest importance. These bear reference for the most part to the habits and mode of life of the patient. Restriction must be laid upon the amount and quality of the food, and equally, or still more, upon the alcoholic stimulants. “The instances,” says Sir Thomas Watson, “are not few of men of good sense, and masters of themselves, who, being warned by one visitation of the gout, have thenceforward resolutely abstained from rich living and from wine and strong drinks of all kinds, and who have been rewarded for their prudence and self-denial by complete immunity from any return of the disease, or upon whom, at any rate, its future assaults have been few and feeble.” The same eminent authority adds: “I am sure it is worth any young man’s while, who has had the gout, to become a teetotaller.” By those more advanced in life who, from long continued habit, are unable entirely to relinquish the use of stimulants, the strictest possible temperance must be observed. Regular but moderate exercise in the form of walking or riding, in the case of those who lead sedentary lives, is of great advantage, and all over-work, either physical or mental, should be avoided. Fatiguez la bête, et reposez la tête is the maxim of an experienced French doctor (Dr Debout d’Estrées of Contrexéville). Unfortunately the complete carrying out of such directions, even by those who feel their importance, is too often rendered difficult or impossible by circumstances of occupation and otherwise, and at most only an approximation can be made. Certain mineral waters and baths (such as those of Vichy, Royat, Contrexéville, &c.) are of undoubted value in cases of gout and arthritis. The particular place must in each case be determined by the physician, and special caution must be observed in recommending this plan of treatment in persons whose gout is complicated by organic disease of any kind.

GOUTHIÈRE, PIERRE (1740-1806), French metal worker, was born at Troyes and went to Paris at an early age as the pupil of Martin Cour. During his brilliant career he executed a vast quantity of metal work of the utmost variety, the best of which was unsurpassed by any of his rivals in that great art period. It was long believed that he received many commissions for furniture from the court of Louis XVI., and especially from Marie Antoinette, but recent searches suggest that his work for the queen was confined to bronzes. Gouthière can, however, well bear this loss, nor will his reputation suffer should those critics ultimately be justified who believe that many of the furniture mounts attributed to him were from the hand of Thomire. But if he did not work for the court he unquestionably produced many of the most splendid belongings of the duc d’Aumont, the duchesse de Mazarin and Mme du Barry. Indeed the custom of the beautiful mistress of Louis XV. brought about the financial ruin of the great artist, who accomplished more than any other man for the fame of her château of Louveciennes. When the collection of the duc d’Aumont was sold by auction in Paris in 1782 so many objects mounted by Gouthière were bought for Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette that it is not difficult to perceive the basis of the belief that they were actually made for the court. The duc’s sale catalogue is, however, in existence, with the names of the purchasers and the prices realized. The auction was almost an apotheosis of Gouthière. The precious lacquer cabinets, the chandeliers and candelabra, the tables and cabinets in marquetry, the columns and vases in porphyry, jasper and choice marbles, the porcelains of China and Japan were nearly all mounted in bronze by him. More than fifty of these pieces bore Gouthière’s signature. The duc d’Aumont’s cabinet represented the high-water mark of the chaser’s art, and the great prices which were paid for Gouthière’s work at this sale are the most conclusive criterion of the value set upon his achievement in his own day. Thus Marie Antoinette paid 12,000 livres for a red jasper bowl or brûle-parfums mounted by him, which was then already famous. Curiously enough it commanded only one-tenth of that price at the Fournier sale in 1831; but in 1865, when the marquis of Hertford bought it at the prince de Beauvais’s sale, it fetched 31,900 francs. It is now in the Wallace Collection, which contains the finest and most representative gathering of Gouthière’s undoubted work. The mounts of gilt bronze, cast and elaborately chased, show satyrs’ heads, from which hang festoons of vine leaves, while within the feet a serpent is coiled to spring. A smaller cup is one of the treasures of the Louvre. There too is a bronze clock, signed by “Gouthière, cizileur et doreur du Roy à Paris,” dated 1771, with a river god, a water nymph symbolizing the Rhône and its tributary the Durance, and a female figure typifying the city of Avignon. Not all of Gouthière’s work is of the highest quality, and much of what he executed was from the designs of others. At his best his delicacy, refinement and finish are exceedingly delightful—in his great moments he ranks with the highest alike as artist and as craftsman. The tone of soft dead gold which is found on some of his mounts he is believed to have invented, but indeed the gilding of all his superlative work possesses a remarkable quality. This charm of tone is admirably seen in the bronzes and candelabra which he executed for the chimney-piece of Marie Antoinette’s boudoir at Fontainebleau. He continued to embellish Louveciennes for Madame du Barry until the Revolution, and then the guillotine came for her and absolute ruin for him. When her property was seized 292 she owed him 756,000 livres, of which he never received a sol, despite repeated applications to the administrators. “Réduit à solliciter une place à l’hospice, il mourut dans la misère.” So it was stated in a lawsuit brought by his sons against du Barry’s heirs.

GOUVION SAINT-CYR, LAURENT, Marquis de (1764-1830), French marshal, was born at Toul on the 13th of April 1764. At the age of eighteen he went to Rome with the view of prosecuting the study of painting, but although he continued his artistic studies after his return to Paris in 1784 he never definitely adopted the profession of a painter. In 1792 he was chosen a captain in a volunteer battalion, and served on the staff of General Custine. Promotion rapidly followed, and in the course of two years he had become a general of division. In 1796 he commanded the centre division of Moreau’s army in the campaign of the Rhine, and by coolness and sagacity greatly aided him in the celebrated retreat from Bavaria to the Rhine. In 1798 he succeeded Masséna in the command of the army of Italy. In the following year he commanded the left wing of Jourdan’s army in Germany; but when Jourdan was succeeded by Masséna, he joined the army of Moreau in Italy, where he distinguished himself in face of the great difficulties that followed the defeat of Novi. When Moreau, in 1800, was appointed to the command of the army of the Rhine, Gouvion St-Cyr was named his principal lieutenant, and on the 9th of May gained a victory over General Kray at Biberach. He was not, however, on good terms with his commander and retired to France after the first operations of the campaign. In 1801 he was sent to Spain to command the army intended for the invasion of Portugal, and was named grand officer of the Legion of Honour. When a treaty of peace was shortly afterwards concluded with Portugal, he succeeded Lucien Bonaparte as ambassador at Madrid. In 1803 he was appointed to the command of an army corps in Italy, in 1805 he served with distinction under Masséna, and in 1806 was engaged in the campaign in southern Italy. He took part in the Prussian and Polish campaigns of 1807, and in 1808, in which year he was made a count, he commanded an army corps in Catalonia; but, not wishing to comply with certain orders he received from Paris (for which see Oman, Peninsular War, vol. iii.), he resigned his command and remained in disgrace till 1811. He was still a general of division, having been excluded from the first list of marshals owing to his action in refusing to influence the troops in favour of the establishment of the Empire. On the opening of the Russian campaign he received command of an army corps, and on the 18th of August 1812 obtained a victory over the Russians at Polotsk, in recognition of which he was created a marshal of France. He received a severe wound in one of the actions during the general retreat. St-Cyr distinguished himself at the battle of Dresden (August 26-27, 1813), and in the defence of that place against the Allies after the battle of Leipzig, capitulating only on the 11th of November, when Napoleon had retreated to the Rhine. On the restoration of the Bourbons he was created a peer of France, and in July 1815 was appointed war minister, but resigned his office in the November following. In June 1817 he was appointed minister of marine, and in September following again resumed the duties of war minister, which he continued to discharge till November 1819. During this time he effected many reforms, particularly in respect of measures tending to make the army a national rather than a dynastic force. He exerted himself also to safeguard the rights of the old soldiers of the Empire, organized the general staff and revised the code of military law and the pension regulations. He was made a marquess in 1817. He died at Hyères (Var) on the 17th of March 1830. Gouvion St-Cyr would doubtless have obtained better opportunities of acquiring distinction had he shown himself more blindly devoted to the interests of Napoleon, but Napoleon paid him the high compliment of referring to his “military genius,” and entrusted him with independent commands in secondary theatres of war. It is doubtful, however, if he possessed energy commensurate with his skill, and in Napoleon’s modern conception of war, as three parts moral to one technical, there was more need for the services of a bold leader of troops whose “doctrine”—to use the modern phrase—predisposed him to self-sacrificing and vigorous action, than for a savant in the art of war of the type of St-Cyr. Contemporary opinion, as reflected by Marbot, did justice to his “commanding talents,” but remarked the indolence which was the outward sign of the vague complexity of a mind that had passed beyond the simplicity of mediocrity without attaining the simplicity of genius.

GOVAN, a municipal and police burgh of Lanarkshire, Scotland. It lies on the south bank of the Clyde in actual contact with Glasgow, and in a parish of the same name which includes a large part of the city on both sides of the river. Pop. (1891) 61,589; (1901) 76,532. Govan remained little more than a village till 1860, when the growth of shipbuilding and allied trades gave its development an enormous impetus. Among its public buildings are the municipal chambers, combination fever hospital, Samaritan hospital and reception houses for the poor. Elder Park (40 acres) presented to the burgh in 1885 contains a statue of John Elder (1824-1869), the pioneer shipbuilder, the husband of the donor. A statue of Sir William Pearce (1833-1888), another well-known Govan shipbuilder, once M.P. for the burgh, stands at Govan Cross. The Govan lunacy board opened in 1896 an asylum near Paisley. Govan is supplied with Glasgow gas and water, and its tramways are leased by the Glasgow corporation; but it has an electric light installation of its own, and performs all other municipal functions quite independently of the city, annexation to which it has always strenuously resisted. Prince’s Dock lies within its bounds and the shipbuilding yards have turned out many famous ironclads and liners. Besides shipbuilding its other industries are match-making, silk-weaving, hair-working, copper-working, tube-making, weaving, and the manufacture of locomotives and electrical apparatus. The town forms the greater part of the Govan division of Lanarkshire, which returns one member to parliament.

GOVERNMENT (O. Fr. governement, mod. gouvernement, O. Fr. governer, mod. gouverner, from Lat. gubernare, to steer a ship, guide, rule; cf. Gr. κυβερνᾶν), in its widest sense, the ruling power in a political society. In every society of men there is a determinate body (whether consisting of one individual or a few or many individuals) whose commands the rest of the community are bound to obey. This sovereign body is what in more popular phrase is termed the government of the country, and the varieties which may exist in its constitution are known as forms of government. For the opposite theory of a community with “no government,” see Anarchism.

How did government come into existence? Various answers to this question have at times been given, which may be distinguished broadly into three classes. The first class would comprehend the legendary accounts which nations have given in primitive times of their own forms of government. These are always attributed to the mind of a single lawgiver. The government of Sparta was the invention of Lycurgus. Solon, Moses, Numa and Alfred in like manner shaped the government of their respective nations. There was no curiosity about the institutions of other nations—about the origin of governments in general; and each nation was perfectly ready to accept the traditional νομοθέται of any other.

The second may be called the logical or metaphysical account of the origin of government. It contained no overt reference to any particular form of government, whatever its covert references may have been. It answered the question, how government in general came into existence; and it answered it by a logical analysis of the elements of society. The phenomenon to be accounted for being government and laws, it abstracted government and laws, and contemplated mankind as existing 293 without them. The characteristic feature of this kind of speculation is that it reflects how contemporary men would behave if all government were removed, and infers that men must have behaved so before government came into existence. Society without government resolves itself into a number of individuals each following his own aims, and therefore, in the days before government, each man followed his own aims. It is easy to see how this kind of reasoning should lead to very different views of the nature of the supposed original state. With Hobbes, it is a state of war, and government is the result of an agreement among men to keep the peace. With Locke, it is a state of liberty and equality,—it is not a state of war; it is governed by its own law,—the law of nature, which is the same thing as the law of reason. The state of nature is brought to an end by the voluntary agreement of individuals to surrender their natural liberty and submit themselves to one supreme government. In the words of Locke, “Men being by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community” (On Civil Government, c. viii.). Locke boldly defends his theory as founded on historical fact, and it is amusing to compare his demonstration of the baselessness of Sir R. Filmer’s speculations with the scanty and doubtful examples which he accepts as the foundation of his own. But in general the various forms of the hypothesis eliminate the question of time altogether. The original contract from which government sprang is likewise the subsisting contract on which civil society continues to be based. The historical weakness of the theory was probably always recognized. Its logical inadequacy was conclusively demonstrated by John Austin. But it still clings to speculations on the principles of government.

The “social compact” (see Rousseau) is the most famous of the metaphysical explanations of government. It has had the largest history, the widest influence and the most complete development. To the same class belong the various forms of the theory that governments exist by divine appointment. Of all that has been written about the divine right of kings, a great deal must be set down to the mere flatteries of courtiers and ecclesiastics. But there remains a genuine belief that men are bound to obey their rulers because their rulers have been appointed by God. Like the social compact, the theory of divine appointment avoided the question of historical fact.

The application of the historical method to the phenomena of society has changed the aspect of the question and robbed it of its political interest. The student of the history of society has no formula to express the law by which government is born. All that he can do is to trace governmental forms through various stages of social development. The more complex and the larger the society, the more distinct is the separation between the governing part and the rest, and the more elaborate is the subdivision of functions in the government. The primitive type of ruler is king, judge, priest and general. At the same time, his way of life differs little from that of his followers and subjects. The metaphysical theories were so far right in imputing greater equality of social conditions to more primitive times. Increase of bulk brings with it a more complex social organization. War tends to develop the strength of the governmental organization; peace relaxes it. All societies of men exhibit the germs of government; but there would appear to be races of men so low that they cannot be said to live together in society at all. Modern investigations have illustrated very fully the importance of the family (q.v.) in primitive societies, and the belief in a common descent has much to do with the social cohesion of a tribe. The government of a tribe resembles the government of a household; the head of the family is the ruler. But we cannot affirm that political government has its origin in family government, or that there may not have been states of society in which government of some sort existed while the family did not.

I. Forms of Government

Three Standard Forms.—Political writers from the time of Aristotle have been singularly unanimous in their classification of the forms of government. There are three ways in which states may be governed. They may be governed by one man, or by a number of men, small in proportion to the whole number of men in the state, or by a number large in proportion to the whole number of men in the state. The government may be a monarchy, an aristocracy or a democracy. The same terms are used by John Austin as were used by Aristotle, and in very nearly the same sense. The determining quality in governments in both writers, and it may safely be said in all intermediate writers, is the numerical relation between the constituent members of the government and the population of the state. There were, of course, enormous differences between the state-systems present to the mind of the Greek philosopher and the English jurist. Aristotle was thinking of the small independent states of Greece, Austin of the great peoples of modern Europe. The unit of government in the one case was a city, in the other a nation. This difference is of itself enough to invalidate all generalization founded on the common terminology. But on one point there is a complete parallel between the politics of Aristotle and the politics of Austin. The Greek cities were to the rest of the world very much what European nations and European colonies are to the rest of the world now. They were the only communities in which the governed visibly took some share in the work of government. Outside the European system, as outside the Greek system, we have only the stereotyped uniformity of despotism, whether savage or civilized. The question of forms of government, therefore, belongs characteristically to the European races. The virtues and defects of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are the virtues and defects manifested by the historical governments of Europe. The generality of the language used by political writers must not blind us to the fact that they are thinking only of a comparatively small portion of mankind.

Greek Politics.—Aristotle divides governments according to two principles. In all states the governing power seeks either its own advantage or the advantage of the whole state, and the government is bad or good accordingly. In all states the governing power is one man, or a few men or many men. Hence six varieties of government, three of which are bad and three good. Each excellent form has a corresponding depraved form, thus:—

The fault of the depraved forms is that the governors act unjustly where their own interests are concerned. The worst of the depraved forms is tyranny, the next oligarchy and the least bad democracy.1 Each of the three leading types exhibits a number of varieties. Thus in monarchy we have the heroic, the barbaric, the elective dictatorship, the Lacedemonian (hereditary generalship, στρατηγία), and absolute monarchy. So democracy and oligarchy exhibit four corresponding varieties. The best type of democracy is that of a community mainly agricultural, whose citizens, therefore, have not leisure for political affairs, and allow the law to rule. The best oligarchy is that in which a considerable number of small proprietors have the power; here, too, the laws prevail. The worst democracy consists of a larger citizen class having leisure for politics; and the worst oligarchy is that of a small number of very rich and influential men. In both the sphere of law is reduced to a minimum. A good government is one in which as much as possible is left to the laws, and as little as possible to the will of the governor.

294

The Politics of Aristotle, from which these principles are taken, presents a striking picture of the variety and activity of political life in the free communities of Greece. The king and council of heroic times had disappeared, and self-government in some form or other was the general rule. It is to be noticed, however, that the governments of Greece were essentially unstable. The political philosophers could lay down the law of development by which one form of government gives birth to another. Aristotle devotes a large portion of his work to the consideration of the causes of revolutions. The dread of tyranny was kept alive by the facility with which an over-powerful and unscrupulous citizen could seize the whole machinery of government. Communities oscillated between some form of oligarchy and some form of democracy. The security of each was constantly imperilled by the conspiracies of the opposing factions. Hence, although political life exhibits that exuberant variety of form and expression which characterizes all the intellectual products of Greece, it lacks the quality of persistent progress. Then there was no approximation to a national government, even of the federal type. The varying confederacies and hegemonies are the nearest approach to anything of the kind. What kind of national government would ultimately have arisen if Greece had not been crushed it is needless to conjecture; the true interest of Greek politics lies in the fact that the free citizens were, in the strictest sense of the word, self-governed. Each citizen took his turn at the common business of the state. He spoke his own views in the agora, and from time to time in his own person acted as magistrate or judge. Citizenship in Athens was a liberal education, such as it never can be made under any representative system.

The Government of Rome.—During the whole period of freedom the government of Rome was, in theory at least, municipal self-government. Each citizen had a right to vote laws in his own person in the comitia of the centuries or the tribes. The administrative powers of government were, however, in the hands of a bureaucratic assembly, recruited from the holders of high public office. The senate represented capacity and experience rather than rank and wealth. Without some such instrument the city government of Rome could never have made the conquest of the world. The gradual extension of the citizenship to other Italians changed the character of Roman government. The distant citizens could not come to the voting booths; the device of representation was not discovered; and the comitia fell into the power of the town voters. In the last stage of the Roman republic, the inhabitants of one town wielded the resources of a world-wide empire. We can imagine what would be the effect of leaving to the people of London or Paris the supreme control of the British empire or of France,—irresistible temptation, inevitable corruption. The rabble of the capital learn to live on the rest of the empire.2 The favour of the effeminate masters of the world is purchased by panem et circenses. That capable officers and victorious armies should long be content to serve such masters was impossible. A conspiracy of generals placed itself at the head of affairs, and the most capable of them made himself sole master. Under Caesar, Augustus and Tiberius, the Roman people became habituated to a new form of government, which is best described by the name of Caesarism. The outward forms of republican government remained, but one man united in his own person all the leading offices, and used them to give a seemingly legal title to what was essentially military despotism. There is no more interesting constitutional study than the chapters in which Tacitus traces the growth of the new system under the subtle and dissimulating intellect of Tiberius. The new Roman empire was as full of fictions as the English constitution of the present day. The master of the world posed as the humble servant of a menial senate. Deprecating the outward symbols of sovereignty, he was satisfied with the modest powers of a consul or a tribunus plebis. The reign of Tiberius, little capable as he was by personal character of captivating the favour of the multitude, did more for imperialism than was done by his more famous predecessors. Henceforward free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome. Caesarism remained true to the character imposed upon it by its origin. The Caesar was an elective not an hereditary king. The real foundation of his power was the army, and the army in course of time openly assumed the right of nominating the sovereign. The characteristic weakness of the Roman empire was the uncertainty of the succession. The nomination of a Caesar in the lifetime of the emperor was an ineffective remedy. Rival emperors were elected by different armies; and nothing less than the force of arms could decide the question between them.

Modern Governments.—Feudalism.—The Roman empire bequeathed to modern Europe the theory of universal dominion. The nationalities which grew up after its fall arranged themselves on the basis of territorial sovereignty. Leaving out of account the free municipalities of the middle ages, the problem of government had now to be solved, not for small urban communities, but for large territorial nations. The medieval form of government was feudal. One common type pervaded all the relations of life. The relation of king and lord was like the relation between lord and vassal (see Feudalism). The bond between them was the tenure of land. In England there had been, before the Norman Conquest, an approximation to a feudal system. In the earlier English constitution, the most striking features were the power of the witan, and the common property of the nation in a large portion of the soil. The steady development of the power of the king kept pace with the aggregation of the English tribes under one king. The conception that the land belonged primarily to the people gave way to the conception that everything belonged primarily to the king.3 The Norman Conquest imposed on England the already highly developed feudalism of France, and out of this feudalism the free governments of modern Europe have grown. One or two of the leading steps in this process may be indicated here. The first, and perhaps the most important, was the device of representation. For an account of its origin, and for instances of its use in England before its application to politics, we must be content to refer to Stubbs’s Constitutional History, vol. ii. The problem of combining a large area of sovereignty with some degree of self-government, which had proved fatal to ancient commonwealths, was henceforward solved. From that time some form of representation has been deemed essential to every constitution professing, however remotely, to be free.

The connexion between representation and the feudal system of estates must be shortly noticed. The feudal theory gave the king a limited right to military service and to certain aids, both of which were utterly inadequate to meet the expenses of the government, especially in time of war. The king therefore had to get contributions from his people, and he consulted them in their respective orders. The three estates were simply the three natural divisions of the people, and Stubbs has pointed out that, in the occasional treaties between a necessitous king and the order of merchants or lawyers, we have examples of inchoate estates or sub-estates of the realm. The right of representation was thus in its origin a right to consent to taxation. The pure theory of feudalism had from the beginning been broken by William the Conqueror causing all free-holders to take an oath of direct allegiance to himself. The institution of parliaments, and the association of the king’s smaller tenants in capite with other commoners, still further removed the 295 government from the purely feudal type in which the mesne lord stands between the inferior vassal and the king.

Parliamentary Government.—The English System.—The right of the commons to share the power of the king and lords in legislation, the exclusive right of the commons to impose taxes, the disappearance of the clergy as a separate order, were all important steps in the movement towards popular government. The extinction of the old feudal nobility in the dynastic wars of the 15th century simplified the question by leaving the crown face to face with parliament. The immediate result was no doubt an increase in the power of the crown, which probably never stood higher than it did in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth; but even these powerful monarchs were studious in their regard for parliamentary conventionalities. After a long period of speculative controversy and civil war, the settlement of 1688 established limited monarchy as the government of England. Since that time the external form of government has remained unchanged, and, so far as legal description goes, the constitution of William III. might be taken for the same system as that which still exists. The silent changes have, however, been enormous. The most striking of these, and that which has produced the most salient features of the English system, is the growth of cabinet government. Intimately connected with this is the rise of the two great historical parties of English politics. The normal state of government in England is that the cabinet of the day shall represent that which is, for the time, the stronger of the two. Before the Revolution the king’s ministers had begun to act as a united body; but even after the Revolution the union was still feeble and fluctuating, and each individual minister was bound to the others only by the tie of common service to the king. Under the Hanoverian sovereigns the ministry became consolidated, the position of the cabinet became definite, and its dependence on parliament, and more particularly on the House of Commons, was established. Ministers were chosen exclusively from one house or the other, and they assumed complete responsibility for every act done in the name of the crown. The simplicity of English politics has divided parliament into the representatives of two parties, and the party in opposition has been steadied by the consciousness that it, too, has constitutional functions of high importance, because at any moment it may be called to provide a ministry. Criticism is sobered by being made responsible. Along with this movement went the withdrawal of the personal action of the sovereign in politics. No king has attempted to veto a bill since the Scottish Militia Bill was vetoed by Queen Anne. No ministry has been dismissed by the sovereign since 1834. Whatever the power of the sovereign may be, it is unquestionably limited to his personal influence over his ministers. And it must be remembered that since the Reform Act of 1832 ministers have become, in practice, responsible ultimately, not to parliament, but to the House of Commons. Apart, therefore, from democratic changes due to a wider suffrage, we find that the House of Commons, as a body, gradually made itself the centre of the government. Since the area of the constitution has been enlarged, it may be doubted whether the orthodox descriptions of the government any longer apply. The earlier constitutional writers, such as Blackstone and J. L. Delolme, regard it as a wonderful compound of the three standard forms,—monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Each has its place, and each acts as a check upon the others. Hume, discussing the question “Whether the British government inclines more to absolute monarchy or to a republic,” decides in favour of the former alternative. “The tide has run long and with some rapidity to the side of popular government, and is just beginning to turn toward monarchy.” And he gives it as his own opinion that absolute monarchy would be the easiest death, the true euthanasia of the British constitution. These views of the English government in the 18th century may be contrasted with Bagehot’s sketch of the modern government as a working instrument.4

Leading Features of Parliamentary Government.—The parliamentary government developed by England out of feudal materials has been deliberately accepted as the type of constitutional government all over the world. Its leading features are popular representation more or less extensive, a bicameral legislature, and a cabinet or consolidated ministry. In connexion with all of these, numberless questions of the highest practical importance have arisen, the bare enumeration of which would surpass the limits of our space. We shall confine ourselves to a few very general considerations.

The Two Chambers.—First, as to the double chamber. This, which is perhaps more accidental than any other portion of the British system, has been the most widely imitated. In most European countries, in the British colonies, in the United States Congress, and in the separate states of the Union,5 there are two houses of legislature. This result has been brought about partly by natural imitation of the accepted type of free government, partly from a conviction that the second chamber will moderate the democratic tendencies of the first. But the elements of the British original cannot be reproduced to order under different conditions. There have, indeed, been a few attempts to imitate the special character of hereditary nobility attaching to the British House of Lords. In some countries, where the feudal tradition is still strong (e.g. Prussia, Austria, Hungary), the hereditary element in the upper chambers has survived as truly representative of actual social and economic relations. But where these social conditions do not obtain (e.g. in France after the Revolution) the attempt to establish an hereditary peerage on the British model has always failed. For the peculiar solidarity between the British nobility and the general mass of the people, the outcome of special conditions and tendencies, is a result beyond the power of constitution-makers to attain. The British system too, after its own way, has for a long period worked without any serious collision between the Houses,—the standing and obvious danger of the bicameral system. The actual ministers of the day must possess the confidence of the House of Commons; they need not—in fact they often do not—possess the confidence of the House of Lords. It is only in legislation that the Lower House really shares its powers with the Upper; and (apart from any such change in the constitution as was suggested in 1907 by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) the constitution possesses, in the unlimited power of nominating peers, a well-understood last resource should the House of Lords persist in refusing important measures demanded by the representatives of the people. In the United Kingdom it is well understood that the real sovereignty lies with the people (the electorate), and the House of Lords recognizes the principle that it must accept a measure when the popular will has been clearly expressed. In all but measures of first-class importance, however, the House of Lords is a real second chamber, and in these there is little danger of a collision between the Houses. There is the widest possible difference between the British and any other second chamber. In the United States the Senate (constituted on the system of equal representation of states) is the more important of the two Houses, and the only one whose control of the executive can be compared to that exercised by the British House of Commons.

The real strength of popular government in England lies in the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons. That supremacy had been acquired, perhaps to its full extent, before the extension of the suffrage made the constituencies democratic. Foreign imitators, it may be observed, have been more ready to accept a wide basis of representation than to confer real power on the representative body. In all the monarchical countries of Europe, however unrestricted the right of suffrage may be, the real victory of constitutional government has yet to be won. Where the suffrage means little or nothing, there is little or no reason for guarding it against abuse. The independence of the executive in the United States brings that country, from one 296 point of view, more near to the state system of the continent of Europe than to that of the United Kingdom. The people make a more complete surrender of power to the government (State or Federal) than is done in England.

Cabinet Government.—The peculiar functions of the English cabinet are not easily matched in any foreign system. They are a mystery even to most educated Englishmen. The cabinet (q.v.) is much more than a body consisting of chiefs of departments. It is the inner council of the empire, the arbiter of national policy, foreign or domestic, the sovereign in commission. The whole power of the House of Commons is concentrated in its hands. At the same time, it has no place whatever in the legal constitution. Its numbers and its constitution are not fixed even by any rule of practice. It keeps no record of its proceedings. The relations of an individual minister to the cabinet, and of the cabinet to its head and creator, the premier, are things known only to the initiated. With the doubtful exception of France, no other system of government presents us with anything like its equivalent. In the United States, as in the European monarchies, we have a council of ministers surrounding the chief of the state.

Change of Power in the English System.—One of the most difficult problems of government is how to provide for the devolution of political power, and perhaps no other question is so generally and justly applied as the test of a working constitution. If the transmission works smoothly, the constitution, whatever may be its other defects, may at least be pronounced stable. It would be tedious to enumerate all the contrivances which this problem has suggested to political societies. Here, as usual, oriental despotism stands at the bottom of the scale. When sovereign power is imputed to one family, and the law of succession fails to designate exclusively the individual entitled to succeed, assassination becomes almost a necessary measure of precaution. The prince whom chance or intrigue has promoted to the throne of a father or an uncle must make himself safe from his relatives and competitors. Hence the scenes which shock the European conscience when “Amurath an Amurath succeeds.” The strong monarchical governments of Europe have been saved from this evil by an indisputable law of succession, which marks out from his infancy the next successor to the throne. The king names his ministers, and the law names the king. In popular or constitutional governments far more elaborate precautions are required. It is one of the real merits of the English constitution that it has solved this problem—in a roundabout way perhaps, after its fashion—but with perfect success. The ostensible seat of power is the throne, and down to a time not long distant the demise of the crown suspended all the other powers of the state. In point of fact, however, the real change of power occurs on a change of ministry. The constitutional practice of the 19th century settled, beyond the reach of controversy, the occasions on which a ministry is bound to retire. It must resign or dissolve when it is defeated6 in the House of Commons, and if after a dissolution it is beaten again, it must resign without alternative. It may resign if it thinks its majority in the House of Commons not sufficiently large. The dormant functions of the crown now come into existence. It receives back political power from the old ministry in order to transmit it to the new. When the new ministry is to be formed, and how it is to be formed, is also clearly settled by established practice. The outgoing premier names his successor by recommending the king to consult him; and that successor must be the recognized leader of his successful rivals. All this is a matter of custom, not of law; and it is doubtful if any two authorities could agree in describing the custom in language of precision. In theory the monarch may send for any one he pleases, and charge him with the formation of a government; but the ability to form a government restricts this liberty to the recognized head of a party, subject to there being such an individual. It is certain that the intervention of the crown facilitates the transfer of power from one party to another, by giving it the appearance of a mere change of servants. The real disturbance is that caused by the appeal to the electors. A general election is always a struggle between the great political parties for the possession of the powers of government. It may be noted that modern practice goes far to establish the rule that a ministry beaten at the hustings should resign at once without waiting for a formal defeat in the House of Commons.

The English custom makes the ministry dependent on the will of the House of Commons; and, on the other hand, the House of Commons itself is dependent on the will of the ministry. In the last result both depend on the will of the constituencies, as expressed at the general election. There is no fixity in either direction in the tenure of a ministry. It may be challenged at any moment, and it lasts until it is challenged and beaten. And that there should be a ministry and a House of Commons in harmony with each other but out of harmony with the people is rendered all but impossible by the law and the practice as to the duration of parliaments.

Change of Power in the United States.—The United States offers a very different solution of the problem. The American president is at once king and prime minister; and there is no titular superior to act as a conduit-pipe between him and his successor. His crown is rigidly fixed; he can be removed only by the difficult method of impeachment. No hostile vote on matters of legislation can affect his position. But the end of his term is known from the first day of his government; and almost before he begins to reign the political forces of the country are shaping out a new struggle for the succession. Further, a change of government in America means a considerable change in the administrative staff (see Civil Service). The commotion caused by a presidential election in the United States is thus infinitely greater and more prolonged than that caused by a general election in England. A change of power in England affects comparatively few personal interests, and absorbs the attention of the country for a comparatively short space of time. In the United States it is long foreseen and elaborately prepared for, and when it comes it involves the personal fortunes of large numbers of citizens. And yet the British constitution is more democratic than the American, in the sense that the popular will can more speedily be brought to bear upon the government.

Change of Power in France.—The established practice of England and America may be compared with the constitutionalism of France. Here the problem presents different conditions. The head of the state is neither a premier of the English, nor a president of the American type. He is served by a prime minister and a cabinet, who, like an English ministry, hold office on the condition of parliamentary confidence; but he holds office himself on the same terms, and is, in fact, a minister like the others. So far as the transmission of power from cabinet to cabinet is concerned, he discharges the functions of an English king. But the transmission of power between himself and his successor is protected by no constitutional devices whatever, and experience would seem to show that no such devices are really necessary. Other European countries professing constitutional government appear to follow the English practice. The Swiss republic is so peculiarly situated that it is hardly fair to compare it with any other. But it is interesting to note that, while the rulers of the states are elected annually, the same persons are generally re-elected.

The Relation between Government and Laws.—It might be supposed that, if any general proposition could be established about government, it would be one establishing some constant relation between the form of a government and the character of the laws which it enforces. The technical language of the English school of jurists is certainly of a kind to encourage such a supposition. The entire body of law in force in a country at any moment is regarded as existing solely by the fiat of the governing power. There is no maxim more entirely in the spirit of this jurisprudence than the following:—“The real legislator is not he by whom the law was first ordained, but he by whose will it continues to be law.” The whole of the vast repertory 297 of rules which make up the law of England—the rules of practice in the courts, the local customs of a county or a manor, the principles formulated by the sagacity of generations of judges, equally with the statutes for the year, are conceived of by the school of Austin as created by the will of the sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, or so much of them as would now satisfy the definition of sovereignty. It would be out of place to examine here the difficulties which embarrass this definition, but the statement we have made carries on its face a demonstration of its own falsity in fact. There is probably no government in the world of which it could be said that it might change at will the substantive laws of the country and still remain a government. However well it may suit the purposes of analytical jurisprudence to define a law as a command set by sovereign to subject, we must not forget that this is only a definition, and that the assumption it rests upon is, to the student of society, anything but a universal fact. From his point of view the cause of a particular law is not one but many, and of the many the deliberate will of a legislator may not be one. Sir Henry Maine has illustrated this point by the case of the great tax-gathering empires of the east, in which the absolute master of millions of men never dreams of making anything in the nature of a law at all. This view is no doubt as strange to the English statesman as to the English jurist. The most conspicuous work of government in his view is that of parliamentary legislation. For a large portion of the year the attention of the whole people is bent on the operations of a body of men who are constantly engaged in making new laws. It is natural, therefore, to think of law as a factitious thing, made and unmade by the people who happen for the time being to constitute parliament. It is forgotten how small a proportion the laws actually devised by parliament are of the law actually prevailing in the land. No European country has undergone so many changes in the form of government as France. It is surprising how little effect these political revolutions have had on the body of French law. The change from empire to republic is not marked by greater legislative effects than the change from a Conservative to a Liberal ministry in England would be.

These reflections should make us cautious in accepting any general proposition about forms of government and the spirit of their laws. We must remember, also, that the classification of governments according to the numerical proportion between governors and governed supplies but a small basis for generalization. What parallel can be drawn between a small town, in which half the population are slaves, and every freeman has a direct voice in the government, and a great modern state, in which there is not a single slave, while freemen exercise their sovereign powers at long intervals, and through the action of delegates and representatives? Propositions as vague as those of Montesquieu may indeed be asserted with more or less plausibility. But to take any leading head of positive law, and to say that monarchies treat it in one way, aristocracies and democracies in another, is a different matter.

II. Sphere of Government

The action of the state, or sovereign power, or government in a civilized community shapes itself into the threefold functions of legislation, judicature and administration. The two first are perfectly well-defined, and the last includes all the kinds of state action not included in the other two. It is with reference to legislation and administration that the line of permissible state-action requires to be drawn. There is no doubt about the province of the judicature, and that function of government may therefore be dismissed with a very few observations.

The complete separation of the three functions marks a high point of social organization. In simple societies the same officers discharge all the duties which we divide between the legislator, the administrator and the judge. The acts themselves are not consciously recognized as being of different kinds. The evolution of all the parts of a highly complex government from one original is illustrated in a striking way by the history of English institutions. All the conspicuous parts of the modern government, however little they may resemble each other now, can be followed back without a break to their common origin. Parliament, the cabinet, the privy council, the courts of law, all carry us back to the same nidus in the council of the feudal king.

Judicature.—The business of judicature, requiring as it does the possession of a high degree of technical skill and knowledge, is generally entrusted by the sovereign body or people to a separate and independent class of functionaries. In England the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords still maintains in theory the connexion between the supreme legislative and the supreme judicial functions. In some states of the American Union certain judicial functions of the upper house were for a time maintained after the example of the English constitution as it existed when the states were founded. In England there is also still a considerable amount of judicial work in which the people takes its share. The inferior magistracies, except in populous places, are in the hands of private persons. And by the jury system the ascertainment of fact has been committed in very large measure to persons selected indiscriminately from the mass of the people, subject to a small property qualification. But the higher functions of the judicature are exercised by persons whom the law has jealously fenced off from external interference and control. The independence of the bench distinguishes the English system from every other. It was established in principle as a barrier against monarchical power, and hence has become one of the traditional ensigns of popular government. In many of the American states the spirit of democracy has demanded the subjection of the judiciary to popular control. The judges are elected directly by the people, and hold office for a short term, instead of being appointed, as in England, by the responsible executive, and removable only by a vote of the two Houses. At the same time the constitution of the United States has assigned to the supreme court of the Union a perfectly unique position. The supreme court is the guardian of the constitution (as are the state courts of the constitution of the states: see United States). It has to judge whether a measure passed by the legislative powers is not void by reason of being unconstitutional, and it may therefore have to veto the deliberate resolutions of both Houses of Congress and the president. It is admitted that this singular experiment in government has been completely justified by its success.

Limits of State Interference in Legislation and Administration.—The question of the limits of state action does not arise with reference to the judiciary. The enforcement of the laws is a duty which the sovereign power must of absolute necessity take upon itself. But to what conduct of the citizens the laws shall extend is the most perplexing of all political questions. The correlative question with regard to the executive would be what works of public convenience should the state undertake through its own servants. The whole question of the sphere of government may be stated in these two questions: What should the state do for its citizens? and How far should the state interfere with the action of its citizens? These questions are the direct outcome of modern popular government; they are equally unknown to the small democracies of ancient times and to despotic governments at all times. Accordingly ancient political philosophy, rich as it is in all kinds of suggestions, has very little to say that has any bearing on the sphere of government. The conception that the power of the state can be and ought to be limited belongs to the times of “government by discussion,” to use Bagehot’s expression,—to the time when the sovereign number is divided by class interests, and when the action of the majority has to be carried out in the face of strong minorities, capable of making themselves heard. Aristotle does indeed dwell on one aspect of the question. He would limit the action of the government in the sense of leaving as little as possible to the personal will of the governors, whether one or many. His maxim is that the law should reign. But that the sphere of law itself should be restricted, otherwise than by general principles of morality, is a consideration wholly foreign to ancient philosophy. The state is conceived as acting like 298 a just man, and justice in the state is the same thing as justice in the individual. The Greek institutions which the philosophers are unanimous in commending are precisely those which the most state-ridden nations of modern times would agree in repudiating. The exhaustive discussion of all political measures, which for over two centuries has been a fixed habit of English public life, has of itself established the principle that there are assignable limits to the action of the state. Not that the limits ever have been assigned in terms, but popular sentiment has more or less vaguely fenced off departments of conduct as sacred from the interference of the law. Phrases like “the liberty of the subject,” the “sanctity of private property,” “an Englishman’s house is his castle,” “the rights of conscience,” are the commonplaces of political discussion, and tell the state, “Thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

The two contrasting policies are those of laissez-faire (let alone) and Protection, or individualism and state-socialism, the one a policy of non-interference with the free play of social forces, the other of their regulation for the benefit of the community. The laissez-faire theory was prominently upheld by John Stuart Mill, whose essay on Liberty, together with the concluding chapters of his treatise on Political Economy, gives a tolerably complete view of the principles of government. There is a general presumption against the interference of government, which is only to be overcome by very strong evidence of necessity. Governmental action is generally less effective than voluntary action. The necessary duties of government are so burdensome, that to increase them destroys its efficiency. Its powers are already so great that individual freedom is constantly in danger. As a general rule, nothing which can be done by the voluntary agency of individuals should be left to the state. Each man is the best judge of his own interests. But, on the other hand, when the thing itself is admitted to be useful or necessary, and it cannot be effected by voluntary agency, or when it is of such a nature that the consumer cannot be considered capable of judging of the quality supplied, then Mill would allow the state to interpose. Thus the education of children, and even of adults, would fairly come within the province of the state. Mill even goes so far as to admit that, where a restriction of the hours of labour, or the establishment of a periodical holiday, is proved to be beneficial to labourers as a class, but cannot be carried out voluntarily on account of the refusal of individuals to co-operate, government may justifiably compel them to co-operate. Still further, Mill would desire to see some control exercised by the government over the operations of those voluntary associations which, consisting of large numbers of shareholders, necessarily leave their affairs in the hands of one or a few persons. In short, Mill’s general rule against state action admits of many important exceptions, founded on no principle less vague than that of public expediency. The essay on Liberty is mainly concerned with freedom of individual character, and its arguments apply to control exercised, not only by the state, but by society in the form of public opinion. The leading principle is that of Humboldt, “the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity.” Humboldt broadly excluded education, religion and morals from the action, direct and indirect, of the state. Mill, as we have seen, conceives education to be within the province of the state, but he would confine its action to compelling parents to educate their children.

The most thoroughgoing opponent of state action, however, is Herbert Spencer. In his Social Statics, published in 1850, he holds it to be the essential duty of government to protect—to maintain men’s rights to life, to personal liberty and to property; and the theory that the government ought to undertake other offices besides that of protector he regards as an untenable theory. Each man has a right to the fullest exercise of all his faculties, compatible with the same right in others. This is the fundamental law of equal freedom, which it is the duty and the only duty of the state to enforce. If the state goes beyond this duty, it becomes, not a protector, but an aggressor. Thus all state regulations of commerce, all religious establishments, all government relief of the poor, all state systems of education and of sanitary superintendence, even the state currency and the post-office, stand condemned, not only as ineffective for their respective purposes, but as involving violations of man’s natural liberty.

The tendency of modern legislation is more a question of political practice than of political theory. In some cases state interference has been abolished or greatly limited. These cases are mainly two—in matters of opinion (especially religious opinion), and in matters of contract.

GOVERNOR (from the Fr. gouverneur, from gouverner, O. Fr. governer, Lat. gubernare, to steer a ship, to direct, guide), in general, one who governs or exercises authority; specifically, an official appointed to govern a district, province, town, &c. In British colonies or dependencies the representative of the crown is termed a governor. Colonial governors are classed as governors-general, governors and lieutenant-governors, according to the status of the colony or group of colonies over which they preside. Their powers vary according to the position which they occupy. In all cases they represent the authority of the crown. In the United States (q.v.) the official at the head of every state government is called a governor.

GOW, NIEL (1727-1807), Scottish musician of humble parentage, famous as a violinist and player of reels, but more so for the part he played in preserving the old melodies of Scotland. His compositions, and those of his four sons, Nathaniel, the most famous (1763-1831), William (1751-1791), Andrew (1760-1803), and John (1764-1826), formed the “Gow Collection,” comprising various volumes edited by Niel and his sons, a valuable repository of Scottish traditional airs. The most important of Niel’s sons was Nathaniel, who is remembered as the author of the well-known “Caller Herrin,” taken from the fishwives’ cry, a tune to which words were afterwards written by Lady Nairne. Nathaniel’s son, Niel Gow junior (1795-1823), was the author of the famous songs “Flora Macdonald’s Lament” and “Cam’ ye by Athol.”

GOWER, JOHN (d. 1408), English poet, died at an advanced age in 1408, so that he may be presumed to have been born about 1330. He belonged to a good Kentish family, but the suggestion of Sir Harris Nicolas that the poet is to be identified with a John Gower who was at one time possessed of the manor of Kentwell is open to serious objections. There is no evidence that he ever lived as a country gentleman, but he was undoubtedly possessed of some wealth, and we know that he was the owner of the manors of Feltwell in Suffolk and Moulton in Norfolk. In a document of 1382 he is called an “Esquier de Kent,” and he was certainly not in holy orders. That he was acquainted with Chaucer we know, first because Chaucer in leaving England for Italy in 1378 appointed Gower and another to represent him in his absence, secondly because Chaucer addressed his Troilus and Criseide to Gower and Strode (whom he addresses as “moral Gower” and “philosophical Strode”) for criticism and correction, and thirdly because of the lines in the first edition of Gower’s Confessio amantis, “And gret wel Chaucer whan ye mete,” &c. There is no sufficient ground for the suggestion, based partly on the subsequent omission of these lines and partly on the humorous reference of Chaucer to Gower’s Confessio amantis in the introduction to the Man of Law’s Tale, that the friendship was broken by a quarrel. From his Latin poem 299 Vox clamantis we know that he was deeply and painfully interested in the peasants’ rising of 1381; and by the alterations which the author made in successive revisions of this work we can trace a gradually increasing sense of disappointment in the youthful king, whom he at first acquits of all responsibility for the state of the kingdom on account of his tender age. That he became personally known to the king we learn from his own statement in the first edition of the Confessio amantis, where he says that he met the king upon the river, was invited to enter the royal barge, and in the conversation which followed received the suggestion which led him to write his principal English poem. At the same time we know, especially from the later revisions of the Confessio amantis, that he was a great admirer of the king’s brilliant cousin, Henry of Lancaster, afterwards Henry IV., whom he came eventually to regard as a possible saviour of society from the misgovernment of Richard II. We have a record that in 1393 he received a collar from his favourite political hero, and it is to be observed that the effigy upon Gower’s tomb is wearing a collar of SS. with the swan badge which was used by Henry.

The first edition of the Confessio amantis is dated 1390, and this contains, at least in some copies, a secondary dedication to the then earl of Derby. The later form, in which Henry became the sole object of the dedication, is of the year 1393. Gower’s political opinions are still more strongly expressed in the Cronica tripartita.

In 1398 he was married to Agnes Groundolf, and from the special licence granted by the bishop of Winchester for the celebration of this marriage in John Gower’s private oratory we gather that he was then living in lodgings assigned to him within the priory of St Mary Overy, and perhaps also that he was too infirm to be married in the parish church. It is probable that this was not his first marriage, for there are indications in his early French poem that he had a wife at the time when that was written. His will is dated the 15th of August 1408, and his death took place very soon after this. He had been blind for some years before his death. A magnificent tomb with a recumbent effigy was erected over his grave in the chapel of St John the Baptist within the church of the priory, now St Saviour’s, Southwark, and this is still to be seen, though not quite in its original state or place. From the inscription on the tomb, as well as from other indications, it appears that he was a considerable benefactor of the priory and contributed largely to the rebuilding of the church.

The effigy on Gower’s tomb rests its head upon a pile of three folio volumes entitled Speculum meditantis, Vox clamantis and Confessio amantis. These are his three principal works. The first of these was long supposed to have perished, but a copy of it was discovered in the year 1895 under the title Mirour de l’omme. It is a French poem of about 30,000 lines in twelve-line stanzas, and under the form of an allegory of the human soul describes the seven deadly sins and their opposing virtues, and then the various estates of man and the vices incident to each, concluding with a narrative of the life of the Virgin Mary, and with praise of her as the means of reconciliation between God and man. The work is extremely tedious for the most part, but shows considerable command over the language and a great facility in metrical expression.

Gower’s next work was the Vox clamantis in Latin elegiac verse, in which the author takes occasion from the peasants’ insurrection of 1381 to deal again with the faults of the various classes of society. In the earlier portion the insurrection itself is described in a rather vivid manner, though under the form of an allegory: the remainder contains much the same material as we have already seen in that part of the French poem where the classes of society are described. Gower’s Latin verse is very fair, as judged by the medieval standard, but in this book he has borrowed very freely from Ovid, Alexander Neckam, Peter de Riga and others.

Gower’s chief claim, however, to reputation as a poet rests upon his English work, the Confessio amantis, in which he displays in his native language a real gift as a story-teller. He is himself the lover of his poem, in spite of his advancing years, and he makes his confession to Genius, the priest of Venus, under the usual headings supplied by the seven deadly sins. These with their several branches are successively described, and the nature of them illustrated by tales, which are directed to the illustration both of the general nature of the sin, and of the particular form which it may take in a lover. Finally he receives at once his absolution, and his dismissal from the service of Venus, for which his age renders him unfit. The idea is ingenious, and there is often much quaintness of fancy in the application of moral ideas to the relations of the lover and his mistress. The tales are drawn from very various sources and are often extremely well told. The metre is the short couplet, and it is extremely smooth and regular. The great fault of the Confessio amantis is the extent of its digressions, especially in the fifth and seventh books.

Gower also wrote in 1397 a short series of French ballades on the virtue of the married state (Traitié pour essampler les amantz mariés), and after the accession of Henry IV. he produced the Cronica tripartita, a partisan account in Latin leonine hexameters of the events of the last twelve years of the reign of Richard II. About the same time he addressed an English poem in seven-line stanzas to Henry IV. (In Praise of Peace), and dedicated to the king a series of French ballades (Cinkante Balades), which deal with the conventional topics of love, but are often graceful and even poetical in expression. Several occasional Latin pieces also belong to the later years of his life.

On the whole Gower must be admitted to have had considerable literary powers; and though not a man of genius, and by no means to be compared with Chaucer, yet he did good service in helping to establish the standard literary language, which at the end of the 14th century took the place of the Middle English dialects. The Confessio amantis was long regarded as a classic of the language, and Gower and Chaucer were often mentioned side by side as the fathers of English poetry.

GOWER, a seigniory and district in the county of Glamorgan, lying between the rivers Tawe and Loughor and between Breconshire and the sea, its length from the Breconshire border to Worm’s Head being 28 m., and its breadth about 8 m. It corresponds to the ancient commote of Gower (in Welsh Gwyr) which in early Welsh times was grouped with two other commotes stretching westwards to the Towy and so formed part of the principality of Ystrad Tywi. Its early association with the country to the west instead of with Glamorgan is perpetuated by its continued inclusion in the diocese of St Davids, its two rural deaneries, West and East Gower, being in the archdeaconry of Carmarthen. What is meant by Gower in modern popular usage, however, is only the peninsular part or “English Gower” (that is the Welsh Bro-wyr, as distinct from Gwyr proper), roughly corresponding to the hundred of Swansea and lying mainly to the south of a line drawn from Swansea to Loughor.

The numerous limestone caves of the coast are noted for their immense deposits of animal remains, but their traces of man are far scantier, those found in Bacon Hole and in Paviland cave 300 being the most important. In the Roman period the river Tawe, or the great morass between it and the Neath, probably formed the boundary between the Silures and the Goidelic population to the west. The latter, reinforced perhaps from Ireland, continued to be the dominant race in Gower till their conquest or partial expulsion in the 4th century by the sons of Cunedda who introduced a Brythonic element into the district. Centuries later Scandinavian rovers raided the coasts, leaving traces of their more or less temporary occupation in such place-names as Burry Holms, Worms Head and Swansea, and probably also in some cliff earthworks. About the year 1100 the conquest of Gower was undertaken by Henry de Newburgh, first earl of Warwick, with the assistance of Maurice de Londres and others. His followers, who were mostly Englishmen from the marches and Somersetshire with perhaps a sprinkling of Flemings, settled for the most part on the southern side of the peninsula, leaving the Welsh inhabitants of the northern half of Gower practically undisturbed. These invaders were probably reinforced a little later by a small detachment of the larger colony of Flemings which settled in south Pembrokeshire. Moated mounds, which in some cases developed into castles, were built for the protection of the various manors into which the district was parcelled out, the castles of Swansea and Loughor being ascribed to the earl of Warwick and that of Oystermouth to Maurice de Londres. These were repeatedly attacked and burnt by the Welsh during the 12th and 13th centuries, notably by Griffith ap Rhys in 1113, by his son the Lord Rhys in 1189, by his grandsons acting in concert with Llewelyn the Great in 1215, and by the last Prince Llewelyn in 1257. With the Norman conquest the feudal system was introduced, and the manors were held in capite of the lord by the tenure of castle-guard of the castle of Swansea, the caput baroniae.

About 1189 the lordship passed from the Warwick family to the crown and was granted in 1203 by King John to William de Braose, in whose family it remained for over 120 years except for three short intervals when it was held for a second time by King John (1211-1215), by Llewelyn the Great (1216-1223), and the Despensers (c. 1323-1326). In 1208 the Welsh and English inhabitants who had frequent cause to complain of their treatment, received each a charter, in similar terms, from King John, who also visited the town of Swansea in 1210 and in 1215 granted its merchants liberal privileges. In 1283 a number of de Braose’s tenants—unquestionably Welshmen—left Gower for the royal lordship of Carmarthen, declaring that they would live under the king rather than under a lord marcher. In the following year the king visited de Braose at Oystermouth Castle, which seems to have been made the lord’s chief residence, after the destruction of Swansea Castle by Llewelyn. Later on the king’s officers of the newly organized county of Carmarthen repeatedly claimed jurisdiction over Gower, thereby endeavouring to reduce its status from that of a lordship marcher with semi-regal jurisdiction, into that of an ordinary constituent of the new county. De Braose resisted the claim and organized the English part of his lordship on the lines of a county palatine, with its own comitatus and chancery held in Swansea Castle, the sheriff and chancellor being appointed by himself. The inhabitants, who had no right of appeal to the crown against their lord or the decisions of his court, petitioned the king, who in 1305 appointed a special commission to enquire into their alleged grievances, but in the following year the de Braose of the time, probably in alarm, conceded liberal privileges both to the burgesses of Swansea and to the English and Welsh inhabitants of his “county” of English Gower. He was the last lord seignior to live within the seigniory, which passed from him to his son-in-law John de Mowbray. Other troubles befell the de Braose barons and their successors in title, for their right to the lordship was contested by the Beauchamps, representatives of the earlier earls of Warwick, in prolonged litigation carried on intermittently from 1278 to 1396, the Beauchamps being actually in possession from 1354, when a decision was given in their favour, till its reversal in 1396. It then reverted to the Mowbrays and was held by them until the 4th duke of Norfolk exchanged it in 1489, for lands in England, with William Herbert, earl of Pembroke. The latter’s granddaughter brought it to her husband Charles Somerset, who in 1506 was granted her father’s subtitle of Baron Herbert of Chepstow, Raglan and Gower, and from him the lordship has descended to the present lord, the duke of Beaufort.

Gower was made subject to the ordinary law of England by its inclusion in 1535 in the county of Glamorgan as then reorganized; its chancery, which from about the beginning of the 14th century had been located at Oystermouth Castle, came to an end, but though the Welsh acts of 1535 and 1542 purported to abolish the rights and privileges of the lords marchers as conquerors, yet some of these, possibly from being regarded as private rights, have survived into modern times. For instance, the seignior maintained a franchise gaol in Swansea Castle till 1858, when it was abolished by act of parliament, the appointment of coroner for Gower is still vested in him, all writs are executed by the lord’s officers instead of by the officers of the sheriff for the county, and the lord’s rights to the foreshore, treasure trove, felon’s goods and wrecks are undiminished.

The characteristically English part of Gower lies to the south and south-west of its central ridge of Cefn y Bryn. It was this part that was declared by Professor Freeman to be “more Teutonic than Kent itself.” The seaside fringe lying between this area and the town of Swansea, as well as the extreme north-west of the peninsula, also became anglicized at a comparatively early date, though the place-names and the names of the inhabitants are still mainly Welsh. The present line of demarcation between the two languages is one drawn from Swansea in a W.N.W. direction to Llanrhidian on the north coast. It has remained practically the same for several centuries, and is likely to continue so, as it very nearly coincides with the southern outcrop of the coal measures, the industrial population to the north being Welsh-speaking, the agriculturists to the south being English. In 1901 the Gower rural district (which includes the Welsh-speaking industrial parish of Llanrhidian, with about three-sevenths of the total population) had 64.5% of the population above three years of age that spoke English only, 5.2% that spoke Welsh only, the remainder being bilinguals, as compared with 17% speaking English only, 17.7% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Swansea rural district, and 7% speaking English only, 55.2% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Pontardawe rural district, the last two districts constituting Welsh Gower.

More than one-fourth of the whole area of Gower is unenclosed common land, of which in English Gower fully one-half is apparently capable of cultivation. Besides the demesne manors of the lord seignior, six in number, there are some twelve mesne manors and fees belonging to the Penrice estate, and nearly twenty more belonging to various other owners. The tenure is customary freehold, though in some cases described as copyhold, and in the ecclesiastical manor of Bishopston, descent is by borough English. The holdings are on the whole probably smaller in size than in any other area of corresponding extent in Wales, and agriculture is still in a backward state.

In the Arthurian romances Gower appears in the form of Goire as the island home of the dead, a view which probably sprang up among the Celts of Cornwall, to whom the peninsula would appear as an island. It is also surmised by Sir John Rhys that Malory’s Brandegore (i.e. Brân of Gower) represents the Celtic god of the other world (Rhys, Arthurian Legend, 160, 329 et seq.). On Cefn Bryn, almost in the centre of the peninsula, is a cromlech with a large capstone known as Arthur’s Stone. The unusually large number of cairns on this hill, given as eighty by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, suggests that this part of Gower was a favourite burial-place in early British times.

301

GOWN, properly the term for a loose outer garment formerly worn by either sex but now generally for that worn by women. While “dress” is the usual English word, except in such combinations as “tea-gown,” “dressing-gown” and the like, where the original loose flowing nature of the “gown” is referred to, “gown” is the common American word. “Gown” comes from the O. Fr. goune or gonne. The word appears in various Romanic languages, cf. Ital. gonna. The medieval Lat. gunna is used of a garment of skin or fur. A Celtic origin has been usually adopted, but the Irish, Gaelic and Manx words are taken from the English. Outside the ordinary use of the word, “gown” is the name for the distinctive robes worn by holders of particular offices or by members of particular professions or of universities, &c. (see Robes).

GOWRIE, JOHN RUTHVEN, 3rd Earl of (c. 1577-1600), Scottish conspirator, was the second son of William, 4th Lord Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie (cr. 1581), by his wife Dorothea, daughter of Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven. The Ruthven family was of ancient Scottish descent, and had owned extensive estates in the time of William the Lion; the Ruthven peerage dated from the year 1488. The 1st earl of Gowrie (? 1541-1584), and his father, Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven (c. 1520-1566), had both been concerned in the murder of Rizzio in 1566; and both took an active part on the side of the Kirk in the constant intrigues and factions among the Scottish nobility of the period. The former had been the custodian of Mary, queen of Scots, during her imprisonment in Loch Leven, where, according to the queen, he had pestered her with amorous attentions; he had also been the chief actor in the plot known as the “raid of Ruthven” when King James VI. was treacherously seized while a guest at the castle of Ruthven in 1582, and kept under restraint for several months while the earl remained at the head of the government. Though pardoned for this conspiracy he continued to plot against the king in conjunction with the earls of Mar and Angus; and he was executed for high treason on the 2nd of May 1584; his friends complaining that the confession on which he was convicted of treason was obtained by a promise of pardon from the king. His eldest son, William, 2nd earl of Gowrie, only survived till 1588, the family dignities and estates, which had been forfeited, having been restored to him in 1586.

When, therefore, John Ruthven succeeded to the earldom while still a child, he inherited along with his vast estates family traditions of treason and intrigue. There was also a popular belief, though without foundation, that there was Tudor blood in his veins; and Burnet afterwards asserted that Gowrie stood next in succession to the crown of England after King James VI. Like his father and grandfather before him, the young earl attached himself to the party of the reforming preachers, who procured his election in 1592 as provost of Perth, a post that was almost hereditary in the Ruthven family. He received an excellent education at the grammar school of Perth and the university of Edinburgh, where he was in the summer of 1593, about the time when his mother, and his sister the countess of Atholl, aided Bothwell in forcing himself sword in hand into the king’s bedchamber in Holyrood Palace. A few months later Gowrie joined with Atholl and Montrose in offering to serve Queen Elizabeth, then almost openly hostile to the Scottish king; and it is probable that he had also relations with the rebellious Bothwell. Gowrie had thus been already deeply engaged in treasonable conspiracy when, in August 1594, he proceeded to Italy with his tutor, William Rhynd, to study at the university of Padua. On his way home in 1599 he remained for some months at Geneva with the reformer Theodore Beza; and at Paris he made acquaintance with the English ambassador, who reported him to Cecil as devoted to Elizabeth’s service, and a nobleman “of whom there may be exceeding use made.” In Paris he may also at this time have had further communication with the exiled Bothwell; in London he was received with marked favour by Queen Elizabeth and her ministers.

These circumstances owe their importance to the light they throw on the obscurity of the celebrated “Gowrie conspiracy,” which resulted in the slaughter of the earl and his brother by attendants of King James at Gowrie House, Perth, a few weeks The Gowrie conspiracy. after Gowrie’s return to Scotland in May 1600. This event ranks among the unsolved enigmas of history. The mystery is caused by the improbabilities inherent in any of the alternative hypotheses suggested to account for the unquestionable facts of the occurrence; the discrepancies in the evidence produced at the time; the apparent lack of forethought or plan on the part of the chief actors, whichever hypothesis be adopted, as well as the thoughtless folly of their actual procedure; and the insufficiency of motive, whoever the guilty parties may have been. The solutions of the mystery that have been suggested are three in number: first, that Gowrie and his brother had concocted a plot to murder, or more probably to kidnap King James, and that they lured him to Gowrie House for this purpose; secondly, that James paid a surprise visit to Gowrie House with the intention, which he carried out, of slaughtering the two Ruthvens; and thirdly, that the tragedy was the outcome of an unpremeditated brawl following high words between the king and the earl, or his brother. To understand the relative probabilities of these hypotheses regard must be had to the condition of Scotland in the year 1600 (see Scotland: History). Here it can only be recalled that plots to capture the person of the sovereign for the purpose of coercing his actions were of frequent occurrence, more than one of which had been successful, and in several of which the Ruthven family had themselves taken an active part; that the relations between England and Scotland were at this time more than usually strained, and that the young earl of Gowrie was reckoned in London among the adherents of Elizabeth; that the Kirk party, being at variance with James, looked upon Gowrie as an hereditary partisan of their cause, and had recently sent an agent to Paris to recall him to Scotland as their leader; that Gowrie was believed to be James’s rival for the succession to the English crown. Moreover, as regards the question of motive it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the Ruthvens believed Gowrie’s father to have been treacherously done to death, and his widow insulted by the king’s favourite minister; while, on the other, James was indebted in a large sum of money to the earl of Gowrie’s estate, and popular gossip credited either Gowrie or his brother, Alexander Ruthven, with being the lover of the queen. Although the evidence on these points, and on every minute circumstance connected with the tragedy itself, has been exhaustively examined by historians of the Gowrie conspiracy, it cannot be asserted that the mystery has been entirely dispelled; but, while it is improbable that complete certainty will ever be arrived at as to whether the guilt lay with James or with the Ruthven brothers, the most modern research in the light of materials inaccessible or overlooked till the 20th century, points pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was a genuine conspiracy by Gowrie and his brother to kidnap the king. If this be the true solution, it follows that King James was innocent of the blood of the Ruthvens; and it raises the presumption that his own account of the occurrence was, in spite of the glaring improbabilities which it involved, substantially true.

The facts as related by James and other witnesses were, in outline, as follows. On the 5th of August 1600 the king rose early to hunt in the neighbourhood of Falkland Palace, about 14 m. from Perth. Just as he was setting forth in company with the duke of Lennox, the earl of Mar, Sir Thomas Erskine and others, he was accosted by Alexander Ruthven (known as the master of Ruthven), a younger brother of the earl of Gowrie, who had ridden from Perth that morning to inform the king that he had met on the previous day a man in possession of a pitcher full of foreign gold coins, whom he had secretly locked up in a room at Gowrie House. Ruthven urged the king to ride to Perth to examine this man for himself and to take possession of the treasure. After some hesitation James gave credit to the story, suspecting that the possessor of the coins was one of the numerous Catholic agents at that time moving about Scotland in disguise. Without giving a positive reply to 302 Alexander Ruthven, James started to hunt; but later in the morning he called Ruthven to him and said he would ride to Perth when the hunting was over. Ruthven then despatched a servant, Henderson, by whom he had been accompanied from Perth in the early morning, to tell Gowrie that the king was coming to Gowrie House. This messenger gave the information to Gowrie about ten o’clock in the morning. Meanwhile Alexander Ruthven was urging the king to lose no time, requesting him to keep the matter secret from his courtiers, and to bring to Gowrie House as small a retinue as possible. James, with a train of some fifteen persons, arrived at Gowrie House about one o’clock, Alexander Ruthven having spurred forward for a mile or so to announce the king’s approach. But notwithstanding Henderson’s warning some three hours earlier, Gowrie had made no preparations for the king’s entertainment, thus giving the impression of having been taken by surprise. After a meagre repast, for which he was kept waiting an hour, James, forbidding his retainers to follow him, went with Alexander Ruthven up the main staircase and passed through two chambers and two doors, both of which Ruthven locked behind them, into a turret-room at the angle of the house, with windows looking on the courtyard and the street. Here James expected to find the mysterious prisoner with the foreign gold. He found instead an armed man, who, as appeared later, was none other than Gowrie’s servant, Henderson. Alexander Ruthven immediately put on his hat, and drawing Henderson’s dagger, presented it to the king’s breast with threats of instant death if James opened a window or called for help. An allusion by Ruthven to the execution of his father, the 1st earl of Gowrie, drew from James a reproof of Ruthven’s ingratitude for various benefits conferred on his family. Ruthven then uncovered his head, declaring that James’s life should be safe if he remained quiet; then, committing the king to the custody of Henderson, he left the turret—ostensibly to consult Gowrie—and locked the door behind him. While Ruthven was absent the king questioned Henderson, who professed ignorance of any plot and of the purpose for which he had been placed in the turret; he also at James’s request opened one of the windows, and was about to open the other when Ruthven returned. Whether or not Alexander had seen his brother is uncertain. But Gowrie had meantime spread the report below that the king had taken horse and had ridden away; and the royal retinue were seeking their horses to follow him. Alexander, on re-entering the turret, attempted to bind James’s hands; a struggle ensued, in the course of which the king was seen at the window by some of his followers below in the street, who also heard him cry “treason” and call for help to the earl of Mar. Gowrie affected not to hear these cries, but kept asking what was the matter. Lennox, Mar and most of the other lords and gentlemen ran up the main The slaughter of the Ruthvens. staircase to the king’s help, but were stopped by the locked door, which they spent some time in trying to batter down. John Ramsay (afterwards earl of Holdernesse), noticing a small dark stairway leading directly to the inner chamber adjoining the turret, ran up it and found the king struggling at grips with Ruthven. Drawing his dagger, Ramsay wounded Ruthven, who was then pushed down the stairway by the king. Sir Thomas Erskine, summoned by Ramsay, now followed up the small stairs with Dr Hugh Herries, and these two coming upon the wounded Ruthven despatched him with their swords. Gowrie, entering the courtyard with his stabler Thomas Cranstoun and seeing his brother’s body, rushed up the staircase after Erskine and Herries, followed by Cranstoun and others of his retainers; and in the melée Gowrie was killed. Some commotion was caused in the town by the noise of these proceedings; but it quickly subsided, though the king did not deem it safe to return to Falkland for some hours.

The tragedy caused intense excitement throughout Scotland, and the investigation of the circumstances was followed with much interest in England also, where all the details were reported to Elizabeth’s ministers. The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept James’s account of the occurrence, although he voluntarily submitted himself to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family. James gave some colour to this belief, which has not been entirely abandoned, by the relentless severity with which he pursued the two younger, and unquestionably innocent, brothers of the earl. Great efforts were made by the government to prove the complicity of others in the plot. One noted and dissolute conspirator, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary, George Sprot, who swore they had been written by Logan to Gowrie and others. These letters, which are still in existence, were in fact forged by Sprot in imitation of Logan’s handwriting; but the researches of Andrew Lang The Sprot forgeries. have shown cause for suspecting that the most important of them was either copied by Sprot from a genuine original by Logan, or that it embodied the substance of such a letter. If this be correct, it would appear that the conveyance of the king to Fast Castle, Logan’s impregnable fortress on the coast of Berwickshire, was part of the plot; and it supplies, at all events, an additional piece of evidence to prove the genuineness of the Gowrie conspiracy.

Gowrie’s two younger brothers, William and Patrick Ruthven, fled to England; and after the accession of James to the English throne William escaped abroad, but Patrick was taken and imprisoned for nineteen years in the Tower of London. Released in 1622, Patrick Ruthven resided first at Cambridge and afterwards in Somersetshire, being granted a small pension by the crown. He married Elizabeth Woodford, widow of the 1st Lord Gerrard, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, Mary; the latter entered the service of Queen Henrietta Maria, and married the famous painter van Dyck, who painted several portraits of her. Patrick died in poverty in a cell in the King’s Bench in 1652, being buried as “Lord Ruthven.” His son, Patrick, presented a petition to Oliver Cromwell in 1656, in which, after reciting that the parliament of Scotland in 1641 had restored his father to the barony of Ruthven, he prayed that his “extreme poverty” might be relieved by the bounty of the Protector.

GOWRIE, a belt of fertile alluvial land (Scotice, “carse”) of Perthshire, Scotland. Occupying the northern shore of the Firth of Tay, it has a generally north-easterly trend and extends from the eastern boundaries of Perth city to the confines of Dundee. It measures 15 m. in length, its breadth from the river towards the base of the Sidlaw Hills varying from 2 to 4 m. Probably it is a raised beach, submerged until a comparatively recent period. Although it contained much bog land and stagnant water as late as the 18th century, it has since been drained and cultivated, and is now one of the most productive tracts in Perthshire. The district is noteworthy for the number of its castles and mansions, almost wholly residential, among which may be mentioned Kinfauns Castle, Inchyra House, Pitfour Castle, Errol Park, Megginch Castle, dating from 1575; Fingask Castle, Kinnaird Castle, erected in the 15th century and occupied by James VI. in 1617; Rossie Priory, the seat of Lord Kinnaird; and Huntly Castle, built by the 3rd earl of Kinghorne.

303

GOYA, a river town and port of Corrientes, Argentine Republic, the commercial centre of the south-western departments of the province and chief town of a department of the same name, on a riacho or side channel of the Paraná about 5 m. from the main channel and about 120 m. S. of the city of Corrientes. Pop. (1905, est.) 7000. The town is built on low ground which is subject to inundations in very wet weather, but its streets are broad and the general appearance of its edifices is good. Among its public buildings is a handsome parish church and a national normal school. The productions of the neighbourhood are chiefly pastoral, and its exports include cattle, hides, wool and oranges. Goya had an export of crudely-made cheese long before the modern cheese factories of the Argentine Republic came into existence. The place dates from 1807, and had its origin, it is said, in the trade established there by a ship captain and his wife Gregoria or Goya, who supplied passing vessels with beef.

GOYANNA, or Goiana, a city of Brazil in the N.E. angle of the state of Pernambuco, about 65 m. N. of the city of Pernambuco. Pop.(1890) 15,436. It is built on a fertile plain between the rivers Tracunhaem and Capibaribe-mirim near their junction to form the Goyanna river, and is 15 m. from the coast. It is surrounded by, and is the commercial centre for, one of the richest agricultural districts of the state, which produces sugar, rum, coffee, tobacco, cotton, cattle, hides and castor oil. The Goyanna river is navigable for small vessels nearly up to the city, but its entrance is partly obstructed and difficult. Goyanna is one of the oldest towns of the state, and was occupied by the Dutch from 1636 to 1654. It has several old-style churches, an orphans’ asylum, hospital and some small industries.

GOYA Y LUCIENTES, FRANCISCO (1746-1828), Spanish painter, was born in 1746 at Fuendetodos, a small Aragonese village near Saragossa. At an early age he commenced his artistic career under the direction of José Luzan Martinez, who had studied painting at Naples under Mastroleo. It is clear that the accuracy in drawing Luzan is said to have acquired by diligent study of the best Italian masters did not much influence his erratic pupil. Goya, a true son of his province, was bold, capricious, headstrong and obstinate. He took a prominent part on more than one occasion in those rival religious processions at Saragossa which often ended in unseemly frays; and his friends were led in consequence to despatch him in his nineteenth year to Madrid, where, prior to his departure for Rome, his mode of life appears to have been anything but that of a quiet orderly citizen. Being a good musician, and gifted with a voice, he sallied forth nightly, serenading the caged beauties of the capital, with whom he seems to have been a very general favourite.

Lacking the necessary royal patronage, and probably scandalizing by his mode of life the sedate court officials, he did not receive—perhaps did not seek—the usual honorarium accorded to those students who visited Rome for the purpose of study. Finding it convenient to retire for a time from Madrid, he decided to visit Rome at his own cost; and being without resources he joined a “quadrilla” of bull-fighters, passing from town to town until he reached the shores of the Mediterranean. We next hear of him reaching Rome, broken in health and financially bankrupt. In 1772 he was awarded the second prize in a competition initiated by the academy of Parma, styling himself “pupil to Bayeu, painter to the king of Spain.” Compelled to quit Rome somewhat suddenly, he appears again in Madrid in 1775, the husband of Bayeu’s daughter, and father of a son. About this time he appears to have visited his parents at Fuendetodos, no doubt noting much which later on he utilized in his genre works. On returning to Madrid he commenced painting canvases for the tapestry factory of Santa Barbara, in which the king took much interest. Between 1776 and 1780 he appears to have supplied thirty examples, receiving about £1200 for them. Soon after the revolution of 1868, an official was appointed to take an inventory of all works of art belonging to the nation, and in one of the cellars of the Madrid palace were discovered forty-three of these works of Goya on rolls forgotten and neglected (see Los Tapices de Goya; por Cruzado Villaamil, Madrid, 1870).

His originality and talent were soon recognized by Mengs, the king’s painter, and royal favour naturally followed. His career now becomes intimately connected with the court life of his time. He was commissioned by the king to design a series of frescoes for the church of St Anthony of Florida, Madrid, and he also produced works for Saragossa, Valencia and Toledo. Ecclesiastical art was not his forte, and although he cannot be said to have failed in any of his work, his fame was not enhanced by his religious subjects.

In portraiture, without doubt, Goya excelled: his portraits are evidently life-like and unexaggerated, and he disdained flattery. He worked rapidly, and during his long stay at Madrid painted, amongst many others, the portraits of four sovereigns of Spain—Charles III. and IV., Ferdinand VII. and “King Joseph.” The duke of Wellington also sat to him; but on his making some remark which raised the artist’s choler, Goya seized a plaster cast and hurled it at the head of the duke. There are extant two pencil sketches of Wellington, one in the British Museum, the other in a private collection. One of his best portraits is that of the lovely Andalusian duchess of Alva. He now became the spoiled child of fortune, and acquired, at any rate externally, much of the polish of court manners. He still worked industriously upon his own lines, and, while there is a stiffness almost ungainly in the pose of some of his portraits, the stern individuality is always preserved.

Including the designs for tapestry, Goya’s genre works are numerous and varied, both in style and feeling, from his Watteau-like “Al Fresco Breakfast,” “Romeria de San Isidro,” to the “Curate feeding the Devil’s Lamp,” the “Meson del Gallo,” and the painfully realistic massacre of the “Dos de Mayo” (1808). Goya’s versatility is proverbial; in his hands the pencil, brush and graver are equally powerful. Some of his crayon sketches of scenes in the bull ring are full of force and character, slight but full of meaning. He was in his thirty-second year when he commenced his etchings from Velasquez, whose influence may, however, be traced in his work at an earlier date. A careful examination of some of the drawings made for these etchings indicates a steadiness of purpose not usually discovered in Goya’s craft as draughtsman. He is much more widely known by his etchings than his oils; the latter necessarily must be sought in public and private collections, principally in Spain, while the former are known and prized in every capital of Europe. The etched collections by which Goya is best known include “Los Caprichos,” which have a satirical meaning known only to the few; they are bold, weird and full of force. “Los Proverbios” are also supposed to have some hidden intention. “Los Desastres de la Guerra” may fairly claim to depict Spain during the French invasion. In the bull-fight series Goya is evidently at home; he was a skilled master of the barbarous art, and no doubt every sketch is true to nature, and from life.

Goya retired from Madrid, desiring probably during his latter years to escape the trying climate of that capital. He died at Bordeaux on the 16th of April 1828, and a monument has been erected there over his remains. From the deaths of Velasquez and Murillo to the advent of Fortuny, Goya’s name is the only important one found in the history of Spanish art.

GOYÁZ, an inland state of Brazil, bounded by Matto Grosso and Pará on the W., Maranhão, Bahia and Minas Geraes on the E., and Minas Geraes and Matto Grosso on the S. Pop. (1890) 227,572; (1900) 255,284, including many half-civilized Indians and many half-breeds. Area, 288,549 sq. m. The outline of the state is that of a roughly-shaped wedge with the thin edge extending northward between and up to the junction of the rivers Araguaya and Upper Tocantins, and its length is nearly 15° of latitude. The state lies wholly within the great Brazilian plateau region, but its surface is much broken towards the N. by the deeply eroded valleys of the Araguaya and Upper Tocantins rivers and their tributaries. The general slope of the plateau is toward the N., and the drainage of the state is chiefly through the above-named rivers—the principal tributaries of the Araguaya being the Grande and Vermelho, and of the Upper Tocantins, the Manoel Alves Grande, Somno, Paranan 304 and Maranhão. A considerable part of southern Goyáz, however, slopes southward and the drainage is through numerous small streams flowing into the Paranahyba, a large tributary of the Paraná. The general elevation of the plateau is estimated to be about 2700 ft., and the highest elevation was reported in 1892 to be the Serra dos Pyreneos (5250 ft.). Crossing the state N.N.E. to S.S.W. there is a well-defined chain of mountains, of which the Pyreneos, Santa Rita and Santa Martha ranges form parts, but their elevation above the plateau is not great. The surface of the plateau is generally open campo and scrubby arboreal growth called caatingas, but the streams are generally bordered with forest, especially in the deeper valleys. Towards the N. the forest becomes denser and of the character of the Amazon Valley. The climate of the plateau is usually described as temperate, but it is essentially sub-tropical. The valley regions are tropical, and malarial fevers are common. The cultivation of the soil is limited to local needs, except in the production of tobacco, which is exported to neighbouring states. The open campos afford good pasturage, and live stock is largely exported. Gold-mining has been carried on in a primitive manner for more than two centuries, but the output has never been large and no very rich mines have been discovered. Diamonds have been found, but only to a very limited extent. There is a considerable export of quartz crystal, commercially known as “Brazilian pebbles,” used in optical work. Although the northern and southern extremities of Goyáz lie within two great river systems—the Tocantins and Paraná—the upper courses of which are navigable, both of them are obstructed by falls. The only outlet for the state has been by means of mule trains to the railway termini of São Paulo and Minas Geraes, pending the extension of railways from both of those states, one entering Goyáz by way of Catalão, near the southern boundary, and the other at some point further N.

The capital of the state is Goyáz, or Villa-Boa de Goyáz, a mining town on the Rio Vermelho, a tributary of the Araguaya rising on the northern slopes of the Serra de Santa Rita. Pop. (1890) 6807. Gold was discovered here in 1682 by Bartholomeu Bueno, the first European explorer of this region, and the settlement founded by him was called Santa Anna, which is still the name of the parish. The site of the town is a barren, rocky mountain valley, 1900 ft. above sea-level, in which the heat is most oppressive at times and the nights are unpleasantly cold. Goyáz is the see of a bishopric founded in 1826, and possesses a small cathedral and some churches.

GOYEN, JAN JOSEPHSZOON VAN (1596-1656), Dutch painter, was born at Leiden on the 13th of January 1596, learned painting under several masters at Leiden and Haarlem, married in 1618 and settled at the Hague about 1631. He was one of the first to emancipate himself from the traditions of minute imitation embodied in the works of Breughel and Savery. Though he preserved the dun scale of tone peculiar to those painters, he studied atmospheric effects in black and white with considerable skill. He had much influence on Dutch art. He formed Solomon Ruysdael and Pieter Potter, forced attention from Rembrandt, and bequeathed some of his precepts to Pieter de Molyn, Coelenbier, Saftleven, van der Kabel and even Berghem. His life at the Hague for twenty-five years was very prosperous, and he rose in 1640 to be president of his gild. A friend of van Dyck and Bartholomew van der Helst, he sat to both these artists for his likeness. His daughter Margaret married Jan Steen, and he had steady patrons in the stadtholder Frederick Henry, and the chiefs of the municipality of the Hague. He died at the Hague in 1656, possessed of land and houses to the amount of 15,000 florins.

Between 1610 and 1616 van Goyen wandered from one school to the other. He was first apprenticed to Isaak Swanenburgh; he then passed through the workshops of de Man, Klok and de Hoorn. In 1616 he took a decisive step and joined Esaias van der Velde at Haarlem; amongst his earlier pictures, some of 1621 (Berlin Museum) and 1623 (Brunswick Gallery) show the influence of Esaias very perceptibly. The landscape is minute. Details of branching and foliage are given, and the figures are important in relation to the distances. After 1625 these peculiarities gradually disappear. Atmospheric effect in landscapes of cool tints varying from grey green to pearl or brown and yellow dun is the principal object which van Goyen holds in view, and he succeeds admirably in light skies with drifting misty cloud, and downs with cottages and scanty shrubbery or stunted trees. Neglecting all detail of foliage he now works in a thin diluted medium, laying on rubbings as of sepia or Indian ink, and finishing without loss of transparence or lucidity. Throwing his foreground into darkness, he casts alternate light and shade upon the more distant planes, and realizes most pleasing views of large expanse. In buildings and water, with shipping near the banks, he sometimes has the strength if not the colour of Albert Cuyp. The defect of his work is chiefly want of solidity. But even this had its charm for van Goyen’s contemporaries, and some time elapsed before Cuyp, who imitated him, restricted his method of transparent tinting to the foliage of foreground trees.

Van Goyen’s pictures are comparatively rare in English collections, but his work is seen to advantage abroad, and chiefly at the Louvre, and in Berlin, Gotha, Vienna, Munich and Augsburg. Twenty-eight of his works were exhibited together at Vienna in 1873. Though he visited France once or twice, van Goyen chiefly confined himself to the scenery of Holland and the Rhine. Nine times from 1633 to 1655 he painted views of Dordrecht. Nimeguen was one of his favourite resorts. But he was also fond of Haarlem and Amsterdam, and he did not neglect Arnheim or Utrecht. One of his largest pieces is a view of the Hague, executed in 1651 for the municipality, and now in the town collection of that city. Most of his panels represent reaches of the Rhine, the Waal and the Maese. But he sometimes sketched the downs of Scheveningen, or the sea at the mouth of the Rhine and Scheldt; and he liked to depict the calm inshore, and rarely ventured upon seas stirred by more than a curling breeze or the swell of a coming squall. He often painted winter scenes, with ice and skaters and sledges, in the style familiar to Isaac van Ostade. There are numerous varieties of these subjects in the master’s works from 1621 to 1653. One historical picture has been assigned to van Goyen—the “Embarkation of Charles II.” in the Bute collection. But this canvas was executed after van Goyen’s death. When he tried this form of art he properly mistrusted his own powers. But he produced little in partnership with his contemporaries, and we can only except the “Watering-place” in the gallery of Vienna, where the landscape is enlivened with horses and cattle by Philip Wouvermans. Even Jan Steen, who was his son-in-law, only painted figures for one of his pictures, and it is probable that this piece was completed after van Goyen’s death. More than 250 of van Goyen’s pictures are known and accessible. Of this number little more than 70 are undated. None exist without the full name or monogram, and yet there is no painter whose hand it is easier to trace without the help of these adjuncts. An etcher, but a poor one, van Goyen has only bequeathed to us two very rare plates.

GOZLAN, LÉON (1806-1866), French novelist and play-writer, was born on the 1st of September 1806, at Marseilles. When he was still a boy, his father, who had made a large fortune as a ship-broker, met with a series of misfortunes, and Léon, before completing his education, had to go to sea in order to earn a living. In 1828 we find him in Paris, determined to run the risks of literary life. His townsman, Joseph Méry, who was then making himself famous by his political satires, introduced him to several newspapers, and Gozlan’s brilliant articles in the Figaro did much harm to the already tottering government of Charles X. His first novel was Les Mémoires d’un apothicaire (1828), and this was followed by numberless others, among which may be mentioned Washington Levert et Socrate Leblanc (1838), Le Notaire de Chantilly (1836), Aristide Froissart (1843) (one of the most curious and celebrated of his productions), Les Nuits du Père Lachaise (1846), Le Tapis vert (1855), La Folle du logis (1857), Les Émotions de Polydore Marasquin (1857), &c. His best-known works for the theatre 305 are—La Pluie et le beau temps (1861), and Une Tempête dans un verre d’eau (1850), two curtain-raisers which have kept the stage; Le Lion empaillé (1848), La Queue du chien d’Alcibiade (1849), Louise de Nanteuil (1854), Le Gâteau des reines (1855), Les Paniers de la comtesse (1852); and he adapted several of his own novels to the stage. Gozlan also wrote a romantic and picturesque description of the old manors and mansions of his country entitled Les Châteaux de France (2 vols., 1844), originally published (1836) as Les Tourelles, which has some archaeological value, and a biographical essay on Balzac (Balzac chez lui, 1862). He was made a member of the Legion of Honour in 1846, and in 1859 an officer of that order. Gozlan died on the 14th of September 1866, in Paris.

GOZO (Gozzo), an island of the Maltese group in the Mediterranean Sea, second in size to Malta. It lies N.W. and 3¼ m. from the nearest point of Malta, is of oval form, 8¾ m. in length and 4½ m. in extreme breadth, and has an area of nearly 25 m. Its chief town, Victoria, formerly called Rabato (pop. in 1901, 5057) stands near the middle of the island on one of a cluster of steep conical hills, 3½ m. from the port of Migiarro Bay, on the south-east shore, below Fort Chambray. The character of the island is similar to that of Malta. The estimated population in 1907 was 21,911.

GOZZI, CARLO, Count (1722-1806), Italian dramatist, was descended from an old Venetian family, and was born at Venice in March 1722. Compelled by the embarrassed condition of his father’s affairs to procure the means of self-support, he, at the age of sixteen, joined the army in Dalmatia; but three years afterwards he returned to Venice, where he soon made a reputation for himself as the wittiest member of the Granelleschi society, to which the publication of several satirical pieces had gained him admission. This society, nominally devoted to conviviality and wit, had also serious literary aims, and was especially zealous to preserve the Tuscan literature pure and untainted by foreign influences. The displacement of the old Italian comedy by the dramas of Pietro Chiari (1700-1788) and Goldoni, founded on French models, threatened defeat to all their efforts; and in 1757 Gozzi came to the rescue by publishing a satirical poem, Tartana degli influssi per l’ anno bisestile, and in 1761 by his comedy, Fiaba dell’ amore delle tre melarancie, a parody of the manner of the two obnoxious poets, founded on a fairy tale. For its representation he obtained the services of the Sacchi company of players, who, on account of the popularity of the comedies of Chiari and Goldoni—which afforded no scope for the display of their peculiar talents—had been left without employment; and as their satirical powers were thus sharpened by personal enmity, the play met with extraordinary success. Struck by the effect produced on the audience by the introduction of the supernatural or mythical element, which he had merely used as a convenient medium for his satirical purposes, Gozzi now produced a series of dramatic pieces based on fairy tales, which for a period obtained great popularity, but after the breaking up of the Sacchi company were completely disregarded. They have, however, obtained high praise from Goethe, Schlegel, Madame de Staël and Sismondi; and one of them, Re Turandote, was translated by Schiller. In his later years Gozzi set himself to the production of tragedies in which the comic element was largely introduced; but as this innovation proved unacceptable to the critics he had recourse to the Spanish drama, from which he obtained models for various pieces, which, however, met with only equivocal success. He died on the 4th of April 1806.

GOZZI, GASPARO, Count (1713-1786), eldest brother of Carlo Gozzi, was born on the 4th of December 1713. In 1739 he married the poetess Luise Bergalli, and she undertook the management of the theatre of Sant’ Angelo, Venice, he supplying the performers with dramas chiefly translated from the French. The speculation proved unfortunate, but meantime he had attained a high reputation for his contributions to the Gazzetta Veneta, and he soon came to be known as one of the ablest critics and purest and most elegant stylists in Italy. For a considerable period he was censor of the press in Venice, and in 1774 he was appointed to reorganize the university system at Padua. He died at Padua on the 26th of December 1786.

GOZZOLI, BENOZZO, Italian painter, was born in Florence in 1424, or perhaps 1420, and in the early part of his career assisted Fra Angelico, whom he followed to Rome and worked with at Orvieto. In Rome he executed in Santa Maria in Aracoeli a fresco of “St Anthony and Two Angels.” In 1449 he left Angelico, and went to Montefalco, near Foligno in Umbria. In S. Fortunate, near Montefalco, he painted a “Madonna and Child with Saints and Angels,” and three other works. One of these, the altar-piece representing “St Thomas receiving the Girdle of the Virgin,” is now in the Lateran Museum, and shows the affinity of Gozzoli’s early style to Angelico’s. He next painted in the monastery of S. Francesco, Montefalco, filling the choir with a triple course of subjects from the life of the saint, with various accessories, including heads of Dante, Petrarch and Giotto. This work was completed in 1452, and is still marked by the style of Angelico, crossed here and there with a more distinctly Giottesque influence. In the same church, in the chapel of St Jerome, is a fresco by Gozzoli of the Virgin and Saints, the Crucifixion and other subjects. He remained at Montefalco (with an interval at Viterbo) probably till 1456, employing Mesastris as assistant. Thence he went to Perugia, and painted in a church a “Virgin and Saints,” now in the local academy, and soon afterwards to his native Florence, the headquarters of art. By the end of 1459 he had nearly finished his important labour in the chapel of the Palazzo Riccardi, the “Journey of the Magi to Bethlehem,” and, in the tribune of this chapel, a composition of “Angels in a Paradise.” His picture in the National Gallery, London, a “Virgin and Child with Saints,” 1461, belongs also to the period of his Florentine sojourn. Another small picture in the same gallery, the “Rape of Helen,” is of dubious authenticity. In 1464 Gozzoli left Florence for S. Gimignano, where he executed some extensive works; in the church of S. Agostino, a composition of St Sebastian protecting the City from the Plague of this same year, 1464; over the entire choir of the church, a triple course of scenes from the legends of St Augustine, from the time of his entering the school of Tegaste on to his burial, seventeen chief subjects, with some accessories; in the Pieve di S. Gimignano, the “Martyrdom of Sebastian,” and other subjects, and some further works in the city and its vicinity. Here his style combined something of Lippo Lippi with its original elements, and he received co-operation from Giusto d’Andrea. He stayed in this city till 1467, and then began, in the Campo Santo of Pisa, from 1469, the vast series of mural paintings with which his name is specially identified. There are twenty-four subjects from the Old Testament, from the “Invention of Wine by Noah” to the “Visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon.” He contracted to paint three subjects per year for about ten ducats each—a sum which may be regarded as equivalent to 306 £100 at the present day. It appears, however, that this contract was not strictly adhered to, for the actual rate of painting was only three pictures in two years. Perhaps the great multitude of figures and accessories was accepted as a set-off against the slower rate of production. By January 1470 he had executed the fresco of “Noah and his Family,”—followed by the “Curse of Ham,” the “Building of the Tower of Babel” (which contains portraits of Cosmo de’ Medici, the young Lorenzo Politian and others), the “Destruction of Sodom,” the “Victory of Abraham,” the “Marriages of Rebecca and of Rachel,” the “Life of Moses,” &c. In the Cappella Ammannati, facing a gate of the Campo Santo, he painted also an “Adoration of the Magi,” wherein appears a portrait of himself. All this enormous mass of work, in which Gozzoli was probably assisted by Zanobi Macchiavelli, was performed, in addition to several other pictures during his stay in Pisa (we need only specify the “Glory of St Thomas Aquinas,” now in the Louvre), in sixteen years, lasting up to 1485. This is the latest date which can with certainty be assigned to any work from his hand, although he is known to have been alive up to 1498. In 1478 the Pisan authorities had given him, as a token of their regard, a tomb in the Campo Santo. He had likewise a house of his own in Pisa, and houses and land in Florence. In rectitude of life he is said to have been worthy of his first master, Fra Angelico.

The art of Gozzoli does not rival that of his greatest contemporaries either in elevation or in strength, but is pre-eminently attractive by its sense of what is rich, winning, lively and abundant in the aspects of men and things. His landscapes, thronged with birds and quadrupeds, especially dogs, are more varied, circumstantial and alluring than those of any predecessor; his compositions are crowded with figures, more characteristically true when happily and gracefully occupied than when the demands of the subject require tragic or dramatic intensity, or turmoil of action; his colour is bright, vivacious and festive. Gozzoli’s genius was, on the whole, more versatile and assimilative than vigorously original; his drawing not free from considerable imperfections, especially in the extremities and articulations, and in the perspective of his gorgeously-schemed buildings. In fresco-painting he used the methods of tempera, and the decay of his works has been severe in proportion. Of his untiring industry the recital of his labours and the number of works produced are the most forcible attestation.

GRAAFF REINET, a town of South Africa, 185 m. by rail N.W. by N. of Port Elizabeth. Pop. (1904) 10,083, of whom 4055 were whites. The town lies 2463 ft. above the sea and is built on the banks of the Sunday river, which rises a little farther north on the southern slopes of the Sneeuwberg, and here ramifies into several channels. The Dutch church is a handsome stone building with seating accommodation for 1500 people. The college is an educational centre of some importance; it was rebuilt in 1906. Graaff Reinet is a flourishing market for agricultural produce, the district being noted for its mohair industry, its orchards and vineyards.

The town was founded by the Cape Dutch in 1786, being named after the then governor of Cape Colony, C. J. van de Graaff, and his wife. In 1795 the burghers, smarting under the exactions of the Dutch East India Company proclaimed a republic. Similar action was taken by the burghers of Swellendam. Before the authorities at Cape Town could take decisive measures against the rebels, they were themselves compelled to capitulate to the British. The burghers having endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to get aid from a French warship at Algoa Bay surrendered to Colonel (afterwards General Sir) J. O. Vandeleur. In January 1799 Marthinus Prinsloo, the leader of the republicans in 1795, again rebelled, but surrendered in April following. Prinsloo and nineteen others were imprisoned in Cape Town castle. After trial, Prinsloo and another commandant were sentenced to death and others to banishment. The sentences were not carried out and the prisoners were released, March 1803, on the retrocession of the Cape to Holland. In 1801 there had been another revolt in Graaff Reinet, but owing to the conciliatory measures of General F. Dundas (acting governor of the Cape) peace was soon restored. It was this district, where a republican government in South Africa was first proclaimed, which furnished large numbers of the voortrekkers in 1835-1842. It remains a strong Dutch centre.

GRABBE, CHRISTIAN DIETRICH (1801-1836), German dramatist, was born at Detmold on the 11th of December 1801. Entering the university of Leipzig in 1819 as a student of law, he continued the reckless habits which he had begun at Detmold, and neglected his studies. Being introduced into literary circles, he conceived the idea of becoming an actor and wrote the drama Herzog Theodor von Gothland (1822). This, though showing considerable literary talent, lacks artistic form, and is morally repulsive. Ludwig Tieck, while encouraging the young author, pointed out its faults, and tried to reform Grabbe himself. In 1822 Grabbe removed to Berlin University, and in 1824 passed his advocate’s examination. He now settled in his native town as a lawyer and in 1827 was appointed a Militärauditeur. In 1833 he married, but in consequence of his drunken habits was dismissed from his office, and, separating from his wife, visited Düsseldorf, where he was kindly received by Karl Immermann. After a serious quarrel with the latter, he returned to Detmold, where, as a result of his excesses, he died on the 12th of September 1836.

Grabbe had real poetical gifts, and many of his dramas contain fine passages and a wealth of original ideas. They largely reflect his own life and character, and are characterized by cynicism and indelicacy. Their construction also is defective and little suited to the requirements of the stage. The boldly conceived Don Juan und Faust (1829) and the historical dramas Friedrich Barbarossa (1829), Heinrich VI. (1830), and Napoleon oder die Hundert Tage (1831), the last of which places the battle of Waterloo upon the stage, are his best works. Among others are the unfinished tragedies Marius and Sulla (continued by Erich Korn, Berlin, 1890); and Hannibal (1835, supplemented and edited by C. Spielmann, Halle, 1901); and the patriotic Hermannsschlacht or the battle between Arminius and Varus (posthumously published with a biographical notice, by E. Duller, 1838).

GRABE, JOHN ERNEST (1666-1711), Anglican divine, was born on the 10th of July 1666, at Königsberg, where his father, Martin Sylvester Grabe, was professor of theology and history. In his theological studies Grabe succeeded in persuading himself of the schismatical character of the Reformation, and accordingly he presented to the consistory of Samland in Prussia a memorial in which he compared the position of the evangelical Protestant churches with that of the Novatians and other ancient schismatics. He had resolved to join the Church of Rome when a commission of Lutheran divines pointed out flaws in his written argument and called his attention to the English Church as apparently possessing that apostolic succession and manifesting that fidelity to ancient institutions which he desired. He came to England, settled in Oxford, was ordained in 1700, and became chaplain of Christ Church. His inclination was towards the party of the nonjurors. The learned labours to which the remainder of his life was devoted were rewarded with an Oxford degree and a royal pension. He died on the 3rd of November 1711, and in 1726 a monument was erected to him by Edward Harley, earl of Oxford, in Westminster Abbey. He was buried in St Pancras Church, London.

GRACCHUS, in ancient Rome, the name of a plebeian family of the Sempronian gens. Its most distinguished representatives were the famous tribunes of the people, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, (4) and (5) below, usually called simply “the Gracchi.”

1. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, consul in 238 B.C., carried on successful operations against the Ligurian mountaineers, and, at the conclusion of the Carthaginian mercenary war, was in command of the fleet which at the invitation of the insurgents took possession of the island of Sardinia.

2. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, probably the son of (1), distinguished himself during the second Punic war. Consul in 215, he defeated the Capuans who had entered into an alliance with Hannibal, and in 214 gained a signal success over Hanno near Beneventum, chiefly owing to the volones (slave-volunteers), to whom he had promised freedom in the event of victory. In 213 Gracchus was consul a second time and carried on the war in Lucania; in the following year, while advancing northward to reinforce the consuls in their attack on Capua, he was betrayed into the hands of the Carthaginian Mago by a Lucanian of rank, who had formerly supported the Roman cause and was connected with Gracchus himself by ties of hospitality. Gracchus fell fighting bravely; his body was sent to Hannibal, who accorded him a splendid burial.

3. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (c. 210-151 B.C.), father of the tribunes, and husband of Cornelia, the daughter of the elder Scipio Africanus, was possibly the son of a Publius Sempronius Gracchus who was tribune in 189. Although a determined political opponent of the two Scipios (Asiaticus and Africanus), as tribune in 187 he interfered on their behalf when they were accused of having accepted bribes from the king of Syria after the war. In 185 he was a member of the commission sent to Macedonia to investigate the complaints made by Eumenes II. of Pergamum against Philip V. of Macedon. In his curule aedileship (182) he celebrated the games on so magnificent a scale that the burdens imposed upon the Italian and extra-Italian communities led to the official interference of the senate. In 181 he went as praetor to Hither Spain, and, after gaining signal successes in the field, applied himself to the pacification of the country. His strict sense of justice and sympathetic attitude won the respect and affection of the inhabitants; the land had rest for a quarter of a century. When consul in 177, he was occupied in putting down a revolt in Sardinia, and brought back so many prisoners that Sardi venales (Sardinians for sale) became a proverbial expression for a drug in the market. In 169 Gracchus was censor, and both he and his colleague (C. Claudius Pulcher) showed themselves determined opponents of the capitalists. They deeply offended the equestrian order by forbidding any contractor who had obtained contracts under the previous censors to make fresh offers. Gracchus stringently enforced the limitation of the freedmen to the four city tribes, which completely destroyed their influence in the comitia. In 165 and 161 he went as ambassador to several Asiatic princes, with whom he established friendly relations. Amongst the places visited by him was Rhodes, where he delivered a speech in Greek, which he afterwards published. In 163 he was again consul.

4. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (163-133 B.C.), son of (3), was the elder of the two great reformers. He and his brother were brought up by their mother Cornelia, assisted by the rhetorician Diophanes of Mytilene and the Stoic Blossius of Cumae. In 147 he served under his brother-in-law the younger Scipio in Africa during the last Punic war, and was the first to mount the walls in the attack on Carthage. When quaestor in 137, he accompanied the consul C. Hostilius Mancinus to Spain. During the Numantine war the Roman army was saved from annihilation only by the efforts of Tiberius, with whom alone the Numantines consented to treat, out of respect for the memory of his father. The senate refused to ratify the agreement; Mancinus was handed over to the enemy as a sign that it was annulled, and only personal popularity saved Tiberius himself from punishment. In 133 he was tribune, and championed the impoverished farmer class and the lower orders. His proposals (see Agrarian Laws) met with violent opposition, and were not carried until he had, illegally and unconstitutionally, secured the deposition of his fellow-tribune, M. Octavius, who had been persuaded by the optimates to veto them. The senate put every obstacle in the way of the three commissioners appointed to carry out the provisions of the law, and Tiberius, in view of the bitter enmity he had aroused, saw that it was necessary to strengthen his hold on the popular favour. The legacy to the Roman people of the kingdom and treasures of Attalus III. of Pergamum gave him an opportunity. He proposed that the money realized by the sale of the treasures should be divided, for the purchase of implements and stock, amongst those to whom assignments of land had been made under the new law. He is also said to have brought forward measures for shortening the period of military service, for extending the right of appeal from the judices to the people, for abolishing the exclusive privilege of the senators to act as jurymen, and even for admitting the Italian allies to citizenship. To strengthen his position further, Tiberius offered himself for re-election as tribune for the following year. The senate declared that it was illegal to hold this office for two consecutive years; but Tiberius treated this objection with contempt. To win the sympathy of the people, he appeared in mourning, and appealed for protection for his wife and children, and whenever he left his house he was accompanied by a bodyguard of 3000 men, chiefly consisting of the city rabble. The meeting of the tribes for the election of tribunes broke up in disorder on two successive days, without any result being attained, although on both occasions the first divisions voted in favour of Tiberius. A rumour reached the senate that he was aiming at supreme power, that he had touched his head with his hand, a sign that he was asking for a crown. An appeal to the consul P. Mucius Scaevola to order him to be put to death at once having failed, P. Scipio Nasica exclaimed that Scaevola was acting treacherously towards the state, and called upon those who agreed with him to take up arms and follow him. During the riot that followed, Tiberius attempted to escape, but stumbled on the slope of the Capitol and was beaten to death with the end of a bench. At night his body, with those of 300 others, was thrown into the Tiber. The aristocracy boldly assumed the responsibility for what had occurred, and set up a commission to inquire into the case of the partisans of Tiberius, many of whom were banished and others put to death. Even the moderate Scaevola subsequently maintained that Nasica was justified in his action; and it was reported that Scipio, when he heard at Numantia of his brother-in-law’s death, repeated the line of Homer—“So perish all who do the like again.”

5. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (153-121 B.C.), younger brother of (4), was a man of greater abilities, bolder and more passionate, although possessed of considerable powers of self-control, and a vigorous and impressive orator. When twenty years of age he was appointed one of the commissioners to carry out the distribution of land under the provisions of his brother’s agrarian law. At the time of Tiberius’s death, Gaius was serving under his brother-in-law Scipio in Spain, but probably returned to Rome in the following year (132). In 131 he supported the bill of C. Papirius Carbo, the object of which was to make it legal for a tribune to offer himself as candidate for the office in two consecutive years, and thus to remove 308 one of the chief obstacles that had hampered Tiberius. The bill was then rejected, but appears to have subsequently passed in a modified form, as Gaius himself was re-elected without any disturbance. Possibly, however, his re-election was illegal, and he had only succeeded where his brother had failed. For the next few years nothing is heard of Gaius. Public opinion pointed him out as the man to avenge his brother’s death and carry out his plans, and the aristocratic party, warned by the example of Tiberius, were anxious to keep him away from Rome. In 126 Gaius accompanied the consul L. Aurelius Orestes as quaestor to Sardinia, then in a state of revolt. Here he made himself so popular that the senate in alarm prolonged the command of Orestes, in order that Gaius might be obliged to remain there in his capacity of quaestor. But he returned to Rome without the permission of the senate, and, when called to account by the censors, defended himself so successfully that he was acquitted of having acted illegally. The disappointed aristocrats then brought him to trial on the charge of being implicated in the revolt of Fregellae, and in other ways unsuccessfully endeavoured to undermine his influence. Gaius then decided to act; against the wishes of his mother he became a candidate for the tribuneship, and, in spite of the determined opposition of the aristocracy, he was elected for the year 123, although only fourth on the list. The legislative proposals1 brought forward by him had for their object:—the punishment of his brother’s enemies; the relief of distress and the attachment to himself of the city populace; the diminution of the power of the senate and the increase of that of the equites; the amelioration of the political status of the Italians and provincials.

These measures raised Gaius to the height of his popularity, and during the year of his first tribuneship he may be considered the absolute ruler of Rome. He was chosen tribune for the second time for the year 122. To this period is probably to be assigned his proposal that the franchise should be given to all the Latin communities and that the status of the Latins should be conferred upon the Italian allies. In 125 M. Fulvius Flaccus had brought forward a similar measure, but he was got out of the way by the senate, who sent him to fight in Gaul. This proposal, more statesmanlike than any of the others, was naturally opposed by the aristocratic party, and lessened Gaius’s popularity amongst his own supporters, who viewed with disfavour the prospect of an increase in the number of Roman citizens. The senate put up M. Livius Drusus to outbid him, and his absence from Rome while superintending the organization of the newly-founded colony, Junonia-Carthago, was taken advantage of by his enemies to weaken his influence. On his return he found his popularity diminished. He failed to secure the tribuneship for the third time, and his bitter enemy L. Opimius was elected consul. The latter at once decided to propose the abandonment of the new colony, which was to occupy the site cursed by Scipio, while its foundation had been attended by unmistakable manifestations of the wrath of the gods. On the day when the matter was to be put to the vote, a lictor named Antyllius, who had insulted the supporters of Gaius, was stabbed to death. This gave his opponents the desired opportunity. Gaius was declared a public enemy, and the consuls were invested with dictatorial powers. The Gracchans, who had taken up their position in the temple of Diana on the Aventine, offered little resistance to the attack ordered by Opimius. Gaius managed to escape across the Tiber, where his dead body was found on the following day in the grove of Furrina by the side of that of a slave, who had probably slain his master and then himself. The property of the Gracchans was confiscated, and a temple of Concord erected in the Forum from the proceeds. Beneath the inscription recording the occasion on which the temple had been built some one during the night wrote the words: “The work of Discord makes the temple of Concord.”

GRACE, WILLIAM GILBERT (1848-  ), English cricketer, was born at Downend, Gloucestershire, on the 18th of July 1848. He found himself in an atmosphere charged with cricket, his father (Henry Mills Grace) and his uncle (Alfred Pocock) being as enthusiastic over the game as his elder brothers, Henry, Alfred and Edward Mills; indeed, in E. M. Grace the family name first became famous. A younger brother, George Frederick, also added to the cricket reputation of the family. “W. G.” witnessed his first great match when he was hardly six years old, the occasion being a game between W. Clarke’s All-England Eleven and twenty-two of West Gloucestershire. He was endowed by nature with a splendid physique as well as with powers of self-restraint and determination. At the acme of his career he stood full 6 ft. 2 in., being powerfully proportioned, loose yet strong of limb. A non-smoker, and very moderate 309 in all matters, he kept himself in condition all the year round, shooting, hunting or running with the beagles as soon as the cricket season was over. He was also a fine runner, 440 yds. over 20 hurdles being his best distance; and it may be quoted as proof of his stamina that on the 30th of July 1866 he scored 224 not out for England v. Surrey, and two days later won a race in the National and Olympian Association meeting at the Crystal Palace. The title of “champion” was well earned by one who for thirty-six years (1865-1900 inclusive) was actively engaged in first-class cricket. In each of these years he was invited to represent the Gentlemen in their matches against the Players, and, when an Australian eleven visited England, to play for the mother country. As late as 1899 he played in the first of the five international contests; in 1900 he played against the players at the Oval, scoring 58 and 3. At fifty-three he scored nearly 1300 runs in first-class cricket, made 100 runs and over on three different occasions and could claim an average of 42 runs. Moreover, his greatest triumphs were achieved when only the very best cricket grounds received serious attention; when, as some consider, bowling was maintained at a higher standard and when all hits had to be run out. He, with his two brothers, E. M. and G. F., assisted by some fine amateurs, made Gloucestershire in one season a first-class county; and it was he who first enabled the amateurs of England to meet the paid players on equal terms and to beat them. There was hardly a “record” connected with the game which did not stand to his credit. Grace was one of the finest fieldsmen in England, in his earlier days generally taking long-leg and cover-point, in later times generally standing point. He was, at his best, a fine thrower, fast runner and safe “catch.” As a bowler he was long in the first flight, originally bowling fast, but in later times adopting a slower and more tricky style, frequently very effective. By profession he was a medical man. In later years he became secretary and manager of the London County Cricket Club. He was married in 1873 to Miss Agnes Day, and one of his sons played for two years in the Cambridge eleven. He was the recipient of two national testimonials: the first, amounting to £1500, being presented to him in the form of a clock and a cheque at Lord’s ground by Lord Charles Russell on the 22nd of July 1879; the second, collected by the M.C.C., the county of Gloucestershire, the Daily Telegraph and the Sportsman, amounted to about £10,000, and was presented to him in 1896. He visited Australia in 1873-1874 (captain), and in 1891-1892 with Lord Sheffield’s Eleven (captain); the United States and Canada in 1872, with R. A. Fitzgerald’s team.

GRACE (Fr. grâce, Lat. gratia, from gratus, beloved, pleasing; formed from the root cra-, Gr. χασ- cf. χαίρω, χάρμα, χάρις), a word of many shades of meaning, but always connoting the idea of favour, whether that in which one stands to others or that which one shows to others. The New English Dictionary groups the meanings of the word under three main heads: (1) Pleasing quality, gracefulness, (2) favour, goodwill, (3) gratitude, thanks.

It is in the second general sense of “favour bestowed” that the word has its most important connotations. In this sense it means something given by superior authority as a concession made of favour and goodwill, not as an obligation or of right. Thus, a concession may be made by a sovereign or other public authority “by way of grace.” Previous to the Revolution of 1688 such concessions on the part of the crown were known in constitutional law as “Graces.” “Letters of Grace” (gratiae, gratiosa rescripta) is the name given to papal rescripts granting special privileges, indulgences, exemptions and the like. In the language of the universities the word still survives in a shadow of this sense. The word “grace” was originally a dispensation granted by the congregation of the university, or by one of the faculties, from some statutable conditions required for a degree. In the English universities these conditions ceased to be enforced, and the “grace” thus became an essential preliminary to any degree; so that the word has acquired the meaning of (a) the licence granted by congregation to take a 310 degree, (b) other decrees of the governing body (originally dispensations from statutes), all such degrees being called “graces” at Cambridge, (c) the permission which a candidate for a degree must obtain from his college or hall.

To this general sense of exceptional favour belong the uses of the word in such phrases as “do me this grace,” “to be in some one’s good graces” and certain meanings of “the grace of God.” The style “by the grace of God,” borne by the king of Great Britain and Ireland among other sovereigns, though, as implying the principle of “legitimacy,” it has been since the Revolution sometimes qualified on the continent by the addition of “and the will of the people,” means in effect no more than the “by Divine Providence,” which is the style borne by archbishops. To the same general sense of exceptional favour belong the phrases implying the concession of a right to delay in fulfilling certain obligations, e.g. “a fortnight’s grace.” In law the “days of grace” are the period allowed for the payment of a bill of exchange, after the term for which it has been drawn (in England three days), or for the payment of an insurance premium, &c. In religious language the “Day of Grace” is the period still open to the sinner in which to repent. In the sense of clemency or mercy, too, “grace” is still, though rarely used: “an Act of Grace” is a formal pardon or a free and general pardon granted by act of parliament. Since to grant favours is the prerogative of the great, “Your Grace,” “His Grace,” &c., became dutiful paraphrases for the simple “you” and “he.” Formerly used in the royal address (“the King’s Grace,” &c.), the style is in England now confined to dukes and archbishops, though the style of “his most gracious majesty” is still used. In Germany the equivalent, Euer Gnaden, is the style of princes who are not Durchlaucht (i.e. Serene Highness), and is often used as a polite address to any superior.

In the language of theology, though in the English Bible the word is used in several of the above senses, “grace” (Gr. χάρις) has special meanings. Above all, it signifies the spontaneous, unmerited activity of the Divine Love in the salvation of sinners, and the Divine influence operating in man for his regeneration and sanctification. Those thus regenerated and sanctified are said to be in a “state of grace.” In the New Testament grace is the forgiving mercy of God, as opposed to any human merit (Rom. xi. 6; Eph. ii. 5; Col. i. 6, &c.); it is applied also to certain gifts of God freely bestowed, e.g. miracles, tongues, &c. (Rom. xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 8, &c.), to the Christian virtues, gifts of God also, e.g. charity, holiness, &c. (2 Cor. viii. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 18). It is also used of the Gospel generally, as opposed to the Law (John i. 17; Rom. vi. 14; 1 Pet. v. 12, &c.); connected with this is the use of the term “year of grace” for a year of the Christian era.

The word “grace” is the central subject of three great theological controversies: (1) that of the nature of human depravity and regeneration (see Pelagius), (2) that of the relation between grace and free-will (see Calvin, John, and Arminius, Jacobus), (3) that of the “means of grace” between Catholics and Protestants, i.e. whether the efficacy of the sacraments as channels of the Divine grace is ex opere operato or dependent on the faith of the recipient.

In the third general sense, of thanks for favours bestowed, “grace” survives as the name for the thanksgiving before or after meals. The word was originally used in the plural, and “to do, give, render, yield graces” was said, in the general sense of the French rendre grâces or Latin gratias agere, of any giving thanks. The close, and finally exclusive, association of the phrase “to say grace” with thanksgiving at meals was possibly due to the formula “Gratias Deo agamus” (“let us give thanks to God”) with which the ceremony began in monastic refectories. The custom of saying grace, which obtained in pre-Christian times among the Jews, Greeks and Romans, and was adopted universally by Christian peoples, is probably less widespread in private houses than it used to be. It is, however, still maintained at public dinners and also in schools, colleges and institutions generally. Such graces are generally in Latin and of great antiquity: they are sometimes short, e.g. “Laus Deo,” “Benedictus benedicat,” and sometimes, as at the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, of considerable length. In some countries grace has sunk to a polite formula; in Germany, e.g. it is usual before and after meals to bow to one’s neighbours and say “Gesegnete Malzeit!” (May your meal be blessed), a phrase often reduced in practice to “Malzeit” simply.

GRACES, THE, (Gr. Χάριτες, Lat. Gratiae), in Greek mythology, the personification of grace and charm, both in nature and in moral action. The transition from a single goddess, Charis, to a number or group of Charites, is marked in Homer. In the Iliad one Charis is the wife of Hephaestus, another the promised wife of Sleep, while the plural Charites often occurs. The Charites are usually described as three in number—Aglaia (brightness), Euphrosyne (joyfulness), Thalia (bloom)—daughters of Zeus and Hera (or Eurynome, daughter of Oceanus), or of Helios and Aegle; in Sparta, however, only two were known, Cleta (noise) and Phaënna (light), as at Athens Auxo (increase) and Hegemone (queen). They are the friends of the Muses, with whom they live on Mount Olympus, and the companions of Aphrodite, of Peitho, the goddess of persuasion, and of Hermes, the god of eloquence, to each of whom charm is an indispensable adjunct. The need of their assistance to the artist is indicated by the union of Hephaestus and Charis. The most ancient seat of their cult was Orchomenus in Boeotia, where their oldest images, in the form of stones fallen from heaven, were set up in their temple. Their worship was said to have been instituted by Eteocles, whose three daughters fell into a well while dancing in their honour. At Orchomenus nightly dances took place, and the festival Charitesia, accompanied by musical contests, was celebrated; in Paros their worship was celebrated without music or garlands, since it was there that Minos, while sacrificing to the Charites, received the news of the death of his son Androgeus; at Messene they were revered together with the Eumenides; at Athens, their rites, kept secret from the profane, were held at the entrance to the Acropolis. It was by Auxo, Hegemone and Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops, that young Athenians, on first receiving their spear and shield, took the oath to defend their country. In works of art the Charites were represented in early times as beautiful maidens of slender form, hand in hand or embracing one another and wearing drapery; later, the conception predominated of three naked figures gracefully intertwined. Their attributes were the myrtle, the rose and musical instruments. In Rome the Graces were never the objects of special religious reverence, but were described and represented by poets and artists in accordance with Greek models.

GRACIÁN Y MORALES, BALTASAR (1601-1658), Spanish prose writer, was born at Calatayud (Aragon) on the 8th of January 1601. Little is known of his personal history except that on May 14, 1619, he entered the Society of Jesus, and that ultimately he became rector of the Jesuit college at Tarazona, where he died on the 6th of December, 1658. His principal works are El Héroe (1630), which describes in apophthegmatic phrases the qualities of the ideal man; the Arte de ingenio, tratado de la Agudeza (1642), republished six years afterwards under the title of Agudeza, y arte de ingenio (1648), a system of rhetoric in which the principles of conceptismo as opposed to culteranismo are inculcated; El Discreto (1645), a delineation of the typical courtier; El Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia (1647), a system of rules for the conduct of life; and El Criticón (1651-1653-1657), an ingenious philosophical allegory of human existence. The only publication which bears Gracián’s name is El Comulgatorio (1655); his more important books were issued under the pseudonym of Lorenzo Gracián (possibly a brother of the writer) or under the anagram of Gracian de Marlones. Gracián was punished for publishing without his superior’s permission El Criticón (in which Defoe is alleged to have found the germ of Robinson Crusoe); but no objection was taken to 311 its substance. He has been excessively praised by Schopenhauer, whose appreciation of the author induced him to translate the Oráculo manual, and he has been unduly depreciated by Ticknor and others. He is an acute thinker and observer, misled by his systematic misanthropy and by his fantastic literary theories.

GRACKLE (Lat. Gracculus or Graculus), a word much used in ornithology, generally in a vague sense, though restricted to members of the families Sturnidae belonging to the Old World and Icteridae belonging to the New. Of the former those to which it has been most commonly applied are the species known as mynas, mainas, and minors of India and the adjacent countries, and especially the Gracula religiosa of Linnaeus, who, according to Jerdon and others, was probably led to confer this epithet upon it by confounding it with the Sturnus or Acridotheres tristis,1 which is regarded by the Hindus as sacred to Ram Deo, one of their deities, while the true Gracula religiosa does not seem to be anywhere held in veneration. This last is about 10 in. in length, clothed in a plumage of glossy black, with purple and green reflections, and a conspicuous patch of white on the quill-feathers of the wings. The bill is orange and the legs yellow, but the bird’s most characteristic feature is afforded by the curious wattles of bright yellow, which, beginning behind the eyes, run backwards in form of a lappet on each side, and then return in a narrow stripe to the top of the head. Beneath each eye also is a bare patch of the same colour. This species is common in southern India, and is represented farther to the north, in Ceylon, Burma, and some of the Malay Islands by cognate forms. They are all frugivorous, and, being easily tamed and learning to pronounce words very distinctly, are favourite cage-birds.2

In America the name Grackle has been applied to several species of the genera Scolecophagus and Quiscalus, though these are more commonly called in the United States and Canada “blackbirds,” and some of them “boat-tails.” They all belong to the family Icteridae. The best known of these are the rusty grackle, S. ferrugineus, which is found in almost the whole of North America, and Q. purpureus, the purple grackle or crow-blackbird, of more limited range, for though abundant in most parts to the east of the Rocky Mountains, it seems not to appear on the Pacific side. There is also Brewer’s or the blue-headed grackle, S. cyanocephalus, which has a more western range, not occurring to the eastward of Kansas and Minnesota. A fourth species, Q. major, inhabits the Atlantic States as far north as North Carolina. All these birds are of exceedingly omnivorous habit, and though destroying large numbers of pernicious insects are in many places held in bad repute from the mischief they do to the corn-crops.

GRADISCA, a town of Austria, in the province of Görz and Gradisca, 10 m. S.W. of Görz by rail. Pop. (1900) 3843, mostly Italians. It is situated on the right bank of the Isonzo and was formerly a strongly fortified place. Its principal industry is silk spinning. Gradisca originally formed part of the margraviate of Friuli, came under the patriarchate of Aquileia in 1028, and in 1420 to Venice. Between 1471 and 1481 Gradisca was fortified by the Venetians, but in 1511 they surrendered it to the emperor Maximilian I. In 1647 Gradisca and its territory, including Aquileia and forty-three smaller places, were erected into a separate countship in favour of Johann Anton von Eggenberg, duke of Krumau. On the extinction of his line in 1717, it reverted to Austria, and was completely incorporated with Görz in 1754. The name was revived by the constitution of 1861, which established the crownland of Görz and Gradisca.

GRADO, a town of northern Spain, in the province of Oviedo; 11 m. W. by N. of the city of Oviedo, on the river Cubia, a left-hand tributary of the Nalon. Pop. (1900) 17,125. Grado is built in the midst of a mountainous, well-wooded and fertile region. It has some trade in timber, live stock, cider and agricultural produce. The nearest railway station is that of the Fabrica de Trubia, a royal cannon-foundry and small-arms factory, 5 m. S.E.

GRADUAL (Med. Lat. gradualis, of or belonging to steps or degrees; gradus, step), advancing or taking place by degrees or step by step; hence used of a slow progress or a gentle declivity or slope, opposed to steep or precipitous. As a substantive, “gradual” (Med. Lat. graduale or gradale) is used of a service book or antiphonal of the Roman Catholic Church containing certain antiphons, called “graduals,” sung at the service of the Mass after the reading or singing of the Epistle. This antiphon received the name either because it was sung on the steps of the altar or while the deacon was mounting the steps of the ambo for the reading or singing of the Gospel. For the so-called Gradual Psalms, cxx.-cxxxiv., the “songs of degrees,” LXX. ᾠδὴ ἀνὰ βαθμῶν, see Psalms, Book of.

GRADUATE (Med. Lat. graduare, to admit to an academical degree, gradus), in Great Britain a verb now only used in the academical sense intransitively, i.e. “to take or proceed to a university degree,” and figuratively of acquiring knowledge of, or proficiency in, anything. The original transitive sense of “to confer or admit to a degree” is, however, still preserved in America, where the word is, moreover, not strictly confined to university degrees, but is used also of those successfully completing a course of study at any educational establishment. As a substantive, a “graduate” (Med. Lat. graduatus) is one who has taken a degree in a university. Those who have matriculated at a university, but not yet taken a degree, are known as “undergraduates.” The word “student,” used of undergraduates e.g. in Scottish universities, is never applied generally to those of the English and Irish universities. At Oxford the only “students” are the “senior students” (i.e. fellows) and “junior students” (i.e. undergraduates on the foundation, or “scholars”) of Christ Church. The verb “to graduate” is also used of dividing anything into degrees or parts in accordance with a given scale. For the scientific application see Graduation below. It may also mean “to arrange in gradations” or “to adjust or apportion according to a given scale.” Thus by “a graduated income-tax” is meant the system by which the percentage paid differs according to the amount of income on a pre-arranged scale.

312

GRADUATION (see also Graduate), the art of dividing straight scales, circular arcs or whole circumferences into any required number of equal parts. It is the most important and difficult part of the work of the mathematical instrument maker, and is required in the construction of most physical, astronomical, nautical and surveying instruments.

The art was first practised by clockmakers for cutting the teeth of their wheels at regular intervals; but so long as it was confined to them no particular delicacy or accurate nicety in its performance was required. This only arose when astronomy began to be seriously studied, and the exact position of the heavenly bodies to be determined, which created the necessity for strictly accurate means of measuring linear and angular magnitudes. Then it was seen that graduation was an art which required special talents and training, and the best artists gave great attention to the perfecting of astronomical instruments. Of these may be named Abraham Sharp (1651-1742), John Bird (1709-1776), John Smeaton (1724-1792), Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800), John Troughton, Edward Troughton (1753-1835), William Simms (1793-1860) and Andrew Ross.

The first graduated instrument must have been done by the hand and eye alone, whether it was in the form of a straight-edge with equal divisions, or a screw or a divided plate; but, once in the possession of one such divided instrument, it was a comparatively easy matter to employ it as a standard. Hence graduation divides itself into two distinct branches, original graduation and copying, which latter may be done either by the hand or by a machine called a dividing engine. Graduation may therefore be treated under the three heads of original graduation, copying and machine graduation.

Original Graduation.—In regard to the graduation of straight scales elementary geometry provides the means of dividing a straight line into any number of equal parts by the method of continual bisection; but the practical realization of the geometrical construction is so difficult as to render the method untrustworthy. This method, which employs the common diagonal scale, was used in dividing a quadrant of 3 ft. radius, which belonged to Napier of Merchiston, and which only read to minutes—a result, according to Thomson and Tait (Nat. Phil.), “giving no greater accuracy than is now attainable by the pocket sextants of Troughton and Simms, the radius of whose arc is little more than an inch.”

The division of circular arcs is essentially the same in principle as the graduation of straight lines.

Copying.—In graduation by copying the pattern must be either an accurately divided straight scale, or an accurately divided circle, commonly called a dividing plate.

In copying a straight scale the pattern and scale to be divided, usually called the work, are first fixed side by side, with their upper faces in the same plane. The dividing square, which closely resembles an ordinary joiner’s square, is then laid across both, and the point of the dividing knife dropped into the zero division of the pattern. The square is now moved up close to the point of the knife; and, while it is held firmly in this position by the left hand, the first division on the work is made by drawing the knife along the edge of the square with the right hand.

It frequently happens that the divisions required on a scale are either greater or less than those on the pattern. To meet this case, and still use the same pattern, the work must be fixed at a certain angle of inclination with the pattern. This angle is found in the following way. Take the exact ratio of a division on the pattern to the required division on the scale. Call this ratio α. Then, if the required divisions are longer than those of the pattern, the angle is cos−1 α, but, if shorter, the angle is sec−1 α. In the former case two operations are required before the divisions are cut: first, the square is laid on the pattern, and the corresponding divisions merely notched very faintly on the edge of the work; and, secondly, the square is applied to the work and the final divisions drawn opposite each faint notch. In the second case, that is, when the angle is sec−1 α, the dividing square is applied to the work, and the divisions cut when the edge of the square coincides with the end of each division on the pattern.

In copying circles use is made of the dividing plate. This is a circular plate of brass, of 36 in. or more in diameter, carefully graduated near its outer edge. It is turned quite flat, and has a steel pin fixed in its centre, and at right angles to its plane. For guiding the dividing knife an instrument called an index is employed. This is a straight bar of thin steel of length equal to the radius of the plate. A piece of metal, having a V notch with its angle a right angle, is riveted to one end of the bar in such a position that the vertex of the notch is exactly in a line with the edge of the steel bar. In this way, when the index is laid on the plate, with the notch grasping the central pin, the straight edge of the steel bar lies exactly along a radius. The work to be graduated is laid flat on the dividing plate, and fixed by two clamps in a position exactly concentric with it. The index is now laid on, with its edge coinciding with any required division on the dividing plate, and the corresponding division on the work is cut by drawing the dividing knife along the straight edge of the index.

Machine Graduation.—The first dividing engine was probably that of Henry Hindley of York, constructed in 1740, and chiefly used by him for cutting the teeth of clock wheels. This was followed shortly after by an engine devised by the duc de Chaulnes; but the first notable engine was that made by Ramsden, of which an account was published by the Board of Longitude in 1777. He was rewarded by that board with a sum of £300, and a further sum of £315 was given to him on condition that he would divide, at a certain fixed rate, the instruments of other makers. The essential principles of Ramsden’s machine have been repeated in almost all succeeding engines for dividing circles.

Ramsden also constructed a linear dividing engine on essentially the same principle. If we imagine the rim of the circular plate with its notches stretched out into a straight line and made movable in a straight slot, the screw, treadle, &c., remaining as before, we get a very good idea of the linear engine.

In 1793 Edward Troughton finished a circular dividing engine, of which the plate was smaller than in Ramsden’s, and which differed considerably in simplifying matters of detail. The plate was originally divided by Troughton’s own method, already described, and the divisions so obtained were employed 314 to ratch the edge of the plate for receiving the tangent screw with great accuracy. Andrew Ross (Trans. Soc. Arts, 1830-1831) constructed a dividing machine which differs considerably from those of Ramsden and Troughton.

A description is given of a dividing engine made by William Simms in the Memoirs of the Astronomical Society, 1843. Simms became convinced that to copy upon smaller circles the divisions which had been put upon a large plate with very great accuracy was not only more expeditious but more exact than original graduation. His machine involved essentially the same principle as Troughton’s. The accompanying figure is taken by permission.

Mention may be made of Donkin’s linear dividing engine, in which a compensating arrangement is employed whereby great accuracy is obtained notwithstanding the inequalities of the screw used to advance the cutting tool. Dividing engines have also been made by Reichenbach, Repsold and others in Germany, Gambey in Paris and by several other astronomical instrument-makers. A machine constructed by E. R. Watts & Son is described by G. T. McCaw, in the Monthly Not. R. A. S., January 1909.

GRADUS, or Gradus ad Parnassum (a step to Parnassus), a Latin (or Greek) dictionary, in which the quantities of the vowels of the words are marked. Synonyms, epithets and poetical expressions and extracts are also included under the more important headings, the whole being intended as an aid for students in Greek and Latin verse composition. The first Latin gradus was compiled in 1702 by the Jesuit Paul Aler (1656-1727), a famous schoolmaster. There is a Latin gradus by C. D. Yonge (1850); English-Latin by A. C. Ainger and H. G. Wintle (1890); Greek by J. Brasse (1828) and E. Maltby (1815), bishop of Durham.

GRAETZ, HEINRICH (1817-1891), the foremost Jewish historian of modern times, was born in Posen in 1817 and died at Munich in 1891. He received a desultory education, and was largely self-taught. An important stage in his development was the period of three years that he spent at Oldenburg as assistant and pupil of S. R. Hirsch, whose enlightened orthodoxy was for a time very attractive to Graetz. Later on Graetz proceeded to Breslau, where he matriculated in 1842. Breslau was then becoming the headquarters of Abraham Geiger, the leader of Jewish reform. Graetz was repelled by Geiger’s attitude, and though he subsequently took radical views of the Bible and tradition (which made him an opponent of Hirsch), Graetz remained a life-long foe to reform. He contended for freedom of thought; he had no desire to fight for freedom of ritual practice. He momentarily thought of entering the rabbinate, but he was unsuited to that career. For some years he supported himself as a tutor. He had previously won repute by his published essays, but in 1853 the publication of the fourth volume of his history of the Jews made him famous. This fourth volume (the first to be published) dealt with the Talmud. It was a brilliant resuscitation of the past. Graetz’s skill in piecing together detached fragments of information, his vast learning and extraordinary critical acumen, were equalled by his vivid power of presenting personalities. No Jewish book of the 19th century produced such a sensation as this, and Graetz won at a bound the position he still occupies as recognized master of Jewish history. His Geschichte der Juden, begun in 1853, was completed in 1875; new editions of the several volumes were frequent. The work has been translated into many languages; it appeared in English in five volumes in 1891-1895. The History is defective in its lack of objectivity; Graetz’s judgments are sometimes biassed, and in particular he lacks sympathy with mysticism. But the history is a work 315 of genius. Simultaneously with the publication of vol. iv. Graetz was appointed on the staff of the new Breslau Seminary, of which the first director was Z. Frankel. Graetz passed the remainder of his life in this office; in 1869 he was created professor by the government, and also lectured at the Breslau University. Graetz attained considerable repute as a biblical critic. He was the author of many bold conjectures as to the date of Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther and other biblical books. His critical edition of the Psalms (1882-1883) was his chief contribution to biblical exegesis, but after his death Professor Bacher edited Graetz’s Emendationes to many parts of the Hebrew scriptures.

GRAEVIUS (properly Gräve or Greffe), JOHANN GEORG (1632-1703). German classical scholar and critic, was born at Naumburg, Saxony, on the 29th of January 1632. He was originally intended for the law, but having made the acquaintance of J. F. Gronovius during a casual visit to Deventer, under his influence he abandoned jurisprudence for philology. He completed his studies under D. Heinsius at Leiden, and under the Protestant theologians A. Morus and D. Blondel at Amsterdam. During his residence in Amsterdam, under Blondel’s influence he abandoned Lutheranism and joined the Reformed Church; and in 1656 he was called by the elector of Brandenburg to the chair of rhetoric in the university of Duisburg. Two years afterwards, on the recommendation of Gronovius, he was chosen to succeed that scholar at Deventer; in 1662 he was translated to the university of Utrecht, where he occupied first the chair of rhetoric, and from 1667 until his death (January 11th, 1703) that of history and politics. Graevius enjoyed a very high reputation as a teacher, and his lecture-room was crowded by pupils, many of them of distinguished rank, from all parts of the civilized world. He was honoured with special recognition by Louis XIV., and was a particular favourite of William III. of England, who made him historiographer royal.

GRAF, ARTURO (1848-  ), Italian poet, of German extraction, was born at Athens. He was educated at Naples University and became a lecturer on Italian literature in Rome, till in 1882 he was appointed professor at Turin. He was one of the founders of the Giornale della letteratura italiana, and his publications include valuable prose criticism; but he is best known as a poet. His various volumes of verse—Poesie e novelle (1874), Dopo il tramonto versi (1893), &c.—give him a high place among the recent lyrical writers of his country.

GRAF, KARL HEINRICH (1815-1869), German Old Testament scholar and orientalist, was born at Mülhausen in Alsace on the 28th of February 1815. He studied Biblical exegesis and oriental languages at the university of Strassburg under E. Reuss, and, after holding various teaching posts, was made instructor in French and Hebrew at the Landesschule of Meissen, receiving in 1852 the title of professor. He died on the 16th of July 1869. Graf was one of the chief founders of Old Testament criticism. In his principal work, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1866), he sought to show that the priestly legislation of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers is of later origin than the book of Deuteronomy. He still, however, held the accepted view, that the Elohistic narratives formed part of the Grundschrift and therefore belonged to the oldest portions of the Pentateuch. The reasons urged against the contention that the priestly legislation and the Elohistic narratives were separated by a space of 500 years were so strong as to induce Graf, in an essay, “Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs,” published shortly before his death, to regard the whole Grundschrift as post-exilic and as the latest portion of the Pentateuch. The idea had already been expressed by E. Reuss, but since Graf was the first to introduce it into Germany, the theory, as developed by Julius Wellhausen, has been called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.

GRÄFE, ALBRECHT VON (1828-1870), German oculist, son of Karl Ferdinand von Gräfe, was born at Berlin on the 22nd of May 1828. At an early age he manifested a preference for the study of mathematics, but this was gradually superseded by an interest in natural science, which led him ultimately to the study of medicine. After prosecuting his studies at Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Paris, London, Dublin and Edinburgh, and devoting special attention to ophthalmology he, in 1850, began practice as an oculist in Berlin, where he founded a private institution for the treatment of the eyes, which became the model of many similar ones in Germany and Switzerland. In 1853 he was appointed teacher of ophthalmology in Berlin university; in 1858 he became extraordinary professor, and in 1866 ordinary professor. Gräfe contributed largely to the progress of the science of ophthalmology, especially by the establishment in 1855 of his Archiv für Ophthalmologie, in which he had Ferdinand Arlt (1812-1887) and F. C. Donders (1818-1889) as collaborators. Perhaps his two most important discoveries were his method of treating glaucoma and his new operation for cataract. He was also regarded as an authority in diseases of the nerves and brain. He died at Berlin on the 20th of July 1870.

GRAFE, HEINRICH (1802-1868), German educationist, was born at Buttstädt in Saxe-Weimar on the 3rd of May 1802. He studied mathematics and theology at Jena, and in 1823 obtained a curacy in the town church of Weimar. He was transferred to Jena as rector of the town school in 1825; in 1840 he was also appointed extraordinary professor of the science of education (Pädagogik) in that university; and in 1842 he became head of the Bürgerschule (middle class school) in Cassel. After reorganizing the schools of the town, he became director of the new Realschule in 1843; and, devoting himself to the interests of educational reform in electoral Hesse, he became in 1849 a member of the school commission, and also entered the house of representatives, where he made himself somewhat formidable as an agitator. In 1852 for having been implicated in the September riots and in the movement against the unpopular minister Hassenpflug, who had dissolved the school commission, he was condemned to three years’ imprisonment, a sentence afterwards reduced to one of twelve months. On his release he withdrew to Geneva, where he engaged in educational work till 1855, when he was appointed director of the school of industry at Bremen. He died in that city on the 21st of July 1868.

GRÄFE, KARL FERDINAND VON (1787-1840), German surgeon, was born at Warsaw on the 8th of March 1787. He studied medicine at Halle and Leipzig, and after obtaining licence from the Leipzig university, he was in 1807 appointed private physician to Duke Alexius of Anhalt-Bernburg. In 1811 he became professor of surgery and director of the surgical 316 clinic at Berlin, and during the war with Napoleon he was superintendent of the military hospitals. When peace was concluded in 1815, he resumed his professorial duties. He was also appointed physician to the general staff of the army, and he became a director of the Friedrich Wilhelm Institute and of the Medico-Chirurgical Academy. He died suddenly on the 4th of July 1840 at Hanover, whither he had been called to operate on the eyes of the crown prince. Gräfe did much to advance the practice of surgery in Germany, especially in the treatment of wounds. He improved the rhinoplastic process, and its revival was chiefly due to him. His lectures at the university of Berlin attracted students from all parts of Europe.

GRAFFITO, plural graffiti, the Italian word meaning “scribbling” or “scratchings” (graffiare, to scribble, Gr. γράφειν), adopted by archaeologists as a general term for the casual writings, rude drawings and markings on ancient buildings, in distinction from the more formal or deliberate writings known as “inscriptions.” These “graffiti,” either scratched on stone or plaster by a sharp instrument such as a nail, or, more rarely, written in red chalk or black charcoal, are found in great abundance, e.g. on the monuments of ancient Egypt. The best-known “graffiti” are those in Pompeii and in the catacombs and elsewhere in Rome. They have been collected by R. Garrucci (Graffiti di Pompei, Paris, 1856), and L. Correra (“Graffiti di Roma” in Bolletino della commissione municipale archaeologica, Rome, 1893; see also Corp. Ins. Lat. iv., Berlin, 1871). The subject matter of these scribblings is much the same as that of the similar scrawls made to-day by boys, street idlers and the casual “tripper.” The schoolboy of Pompeii wrote out lists of nouns and verbs, alphabets and lines from Virgil for memorizing, lovers wrote the names of their beloved, “sportsmen” scribbled the names of horses they had been “tipped,” and wrote those of their favourite gladiators. Personal abuse is frequent, and rude caricatures are found, such as that of one Peregrinus with an enormous nose, or of Naso or Nasso with hardly any. Aulus Vettius Firmus writes up his election address and appeals to the pilicrepi or ball-players for their votes for him as aedile. Lines of poetry, chiefly suited for lovers in dejection or triumph, are popular, and Ovid and Propertius appear to be favourites. Apparently private owners of property felt the nuisance of the defacement of their walls, and at Rome near the Porta Portuensis has been found an inscription begging people not to scribble (scariphare) on the walls.

Graffiti are of some importance to the palaeographer and to the philologist as illustrating the forms and corruptions of the various alphabets and languages used by the people, and occasionally guide the archaeologist to the date of the building on which they appear, but they are chiefly valuable for the light they throw on the everyday life of the “man in the street” of the period, and for the intimate details of customs and institutions which no literature or formal inscriptions can give. The graffiti dealing with the gladiatorial shows at Pompeii are in this respect particularly noteworthy; the rude drawings such as that of the secutor caught in the net of the retiarius and lying entirely at his mercy, give a more vivid picture of what the incidents of these shows were like than any account in words (see Garrucci, op. cit., Pls. x.-xiv.; A. Mau, Pompeii in Leben und Kunst, 2nd ed., 1908, ch. xxx.). In 1866 in the Trastevere quarter of Rome, near the church of S. Crisogono, was discovered the guardhouse (excubitorium) of the seventh cohort of the city police (vigiles), the walls being covered by the scribblings of the guards, illustrating in detail the daily routine, the hardships and dangers, and the feelings of the men towards their officers (W. Henzen, “L’ Escubitorio della Settima coorte dei Vigili” in Bull. Inst. 1867, and Annali Inst., 1874; see also R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, 230, and Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, 1897, 548). The most famous graffito yet discovered is that generally accepted as representing a caricature of Christ upon the cross, found on the walls of the Domus Gelotiana on the Palatine in 1857, and now preserved in the Kircherian Museum of the Collegio Romano. Deeply scratched in the wall is a figure of a man clad in the short tunica with one hand upraised in salutation to another figure, with the head of an ass, or possibly a horse, hanging on a cross; beneath is written in rude Greek letters “Anaxamenos worships (his) god.” It has been suggested that this represents an adherent of some Gnostic sect worshipping one of the animal-headed deities of Egypt (see Ferd. Becker, Das Spottcrucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste, Breslau, 1866; F. X. Kraus, Das Spottcrucifix vom Palatin, Freiburg in Breisgau, 1872; and Visconti and Lanciani, Guida del Palatino).

GRAFLY, CHARLES (1862-  ), American sculptor, was born at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 3rd of December 1862. He was a pupil of the schools of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, and of Henri M. Chapu and Jean Dampt, and the École des Beaux Arts, Paris. He received an Honorable Mention in the Paris Salon of 1891 for his “Mauvais Présage,” now at the Detroit Museum of Fine Arts, a gold medal at the Paris Exposition, in 1900, and medals at Chicago, 1893, Atlanta, 1895, and Philadelphia (the gold Medal of Honor, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts), 1899. In 1892 he became instructor in sculpture at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, also filling the same chair at the Drexel Institute, Philadelphia. He was elected a full member of the National Academy of Design in 1905. His better-known works include: “General Reynolds,” Fairmount Park, Philadelphia; “Fountain of Man” (made for the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo); “From Generation to Generation”; “Symbol of Life”; “Vulture of War,” and many portrait busts.

GRÄFRATH, a town in Rhenish Prussia, on the Itterbach, 14 m. E. of Düsseldorf on the railway Hilden-Vohwinkel. Pop. (1905) 9030. It has a Roman Catholic and two Evangelical churches, and there was an abbey here from 1185 to 1803. The principal industries are iron and steel, while weaving is carried on in the town.

GRAFT (a modified form of the earlier “graff,” through the French from the Late Lat. graphium, a stylus or pencil), a small branch, shoot or “scion,” transferred from one plant or tree to another, the “stock,” and inserted in it so that the two unite (see Horticulture). The name was adopted from the resemblance in shape of the “graft” to a pencil. The transfer of living tissue from one portion of an organism to another part of the same or different organism where it adheres and grows is also known as “grafting,” and is frequently practised in modern surgery. The word is applied, in carpentry, to an attachment of the ends of timbers, and, as a nautical term, to the “whipping” or “pointing” of a rope’s end with fine twine to prevent unravelling. “Graft” is used as a slang term, in England, for a “piece of hard work.” In American usage Webster’s Dictionary (ed. 1904) defines the word as “the act of any one, especially an official or public employé, by which he procures money surreptitiously by virtue of his office or position; also the surreptitious gain thus procured.” It is thus a word embracing blackmail and illicit commission. The origin of the English use of the word is probably an obsolete word “graft,” a portion of earth thrown up by a spade, from the Teutonic root meaning “to dig,” seen in German graben, and English “grave.”

GRAFTON, DUKES OF. The English dukes of Grafton are descended from Henry Fitzroy (1663-1690), the natural son of Charles II. by Barbara Villiers (countess of Castlemaine and duchess of Cleveland). In 1672 he was married to the daughter and heiress of the earl of Arlington and created earl of Euston; in 1675 he was created duke of Grafton. He was brought 317 up as a sailor, and saw military service at the siege of Luxemburg in 1684. At James II.’s coronation he was lord high constable. In the rebellion of the duke of Monmouth he commanded the royal troops in Somersetshire; but later he acted with Churchill (duke of Marlborough), and joined William of Orange against the king. He died of a wound received at the storming of Cork, while leading William’s forces, being succeeded as 2nd duke by his son Charles (1682-1757).

Augustus Henry Fitzroy, 3rd duke of Grafton (1735-1811), one of the leading politicians of his time, was the grandson of the 2nd duke, and was educated at Westminster and Cambridge. He first became known in politics as an opponent of Lord Bute; in 1765 he was secretary of state under the marquis of Rockingham; but he retired next year, and Pitt (becoming earl of Chatham) formed a ministry in which Grafton was first lord of the treasury (1766) but only nominally prime minister. Chatham’s illness at the end of 1767 resulted in Grafton becoming the effective leader, but political differences and the attacks of “Junius” led to his resignation in January 1770. He became lord privy seal in Lord North’s ministry (1771) but resigned in 1775, being in favour of conciliatory action towards the American colonists. In the Rockingham ministry of 1782 he was again lord privy seal. In later years he was a prominent Unitarian.

Besides his successor, the 4th duke (1760-1844), and numerous other children, he was the father of General Lord Charles Fitzroy (1764-1829), whose sons Sir Charles Fitzroy (1798-1858), governor of New South Wales, and Robert Fitzroy (q.v.), the hydrographer, were notable men. The 4th duke’s son, who succeeded as 5th duke, was father of the 6th and 7th dukes.

GRAFTON, RICHARD (d. 1572). English printer and chronicler, was probably born about 1513. He received the freedom of the Grocers’ Company in 1534. Miles Coverdale’s version of the Bible had first been printed in 1535. Grafton was early brought into touch with the leaders of religious reform, and in 1537 he undertook, in conjunction with Edward Whitchurch, to produce a modified version of Coverdale’s text, generally known as Matthew’s Bible (Antwerp, 1537). He went to Paris to reprint Coverdale’s revised edition (1538). There Whitchurch and he began to print the folio known as the Great Bible by special licence obtained by Henry VIII. from the French government. Suddenly, however, the work was officially stopped and the presses seized. Grafton fled, but Thomas Cromwell eventually bought the presses and type, and the printing was completed in England. The Great Bible was reprinted several times under his direction, the last occasion being 1553. In 1544 Grafton and Whitchurch secured the exclusive right of printing church service books, and on the accession of Edward VI. he was appointed king’s printer, an office which he retained throughout the reign. In this capacity he produced The Booke of the Common Praier and Administracion of the Sacramentes, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Churche: after the Use of the Churche of Englande (1549 fol.), and Actes of Parliament (1552 and 1553). In 1553 he printed Lady Jane Grey’s proclamation and signed himself the queen’s printer. For this he was imprisoned for a short time, and he seems thereafter to have retired from active business. His historical works include a continuation (1543) of Hardyng’s Chronicle from the beginning of the reign of Edward IV. down to Grafton’s own times. He is said to have taken considerable liberties with the original, and may practically be regarded as responsible for the whole work. He printed in 1548 Edward Hall’s Union of the ... Families of Lancastre and Yorke, adding the history of the years from 1532 to 1547. After he retired from the printing business he published An Abridgement of the Chronicles of England (1562), Manuell of the Chronicles of England (1565), Chronicle at large and meere Historye of the Affayres of England (1568). In these books he chiefly adapted the work of his predecessors, but in some cases he gives detailed accounts of contemporary events. His name frequently appears in the records of St Bartholomew’s and Christ’s hospitals, and in 1553 he was treasurer-general of the hospitals of King Edward’s foundation. In 1553-1554 and 1556-1557 he represented the City in Parliament, and in 1562-1563 he sat for Coventry.

GRAFTON, a city of Clarence county, New South Wales, lying on both sides of the Clarence river, at a distance of 45 m. from its mouth, 342 m. N.E. of Sydney by sea. Pop. (1901) 4174, South Grafton, 976. The two sections, North Grafton and South Grafton, form separate municipalities. The river is navigable from the sea to the town for ships of moderate burden, and for small vessels to a point 35 m. beyond it. The entrance to the river has been artificially improved. Grafton is the seat of the Anglican joint-bishopric of Grafton and Armidale, and of a Roman Catholic bishopric created in 1888, both of which have fine cathedrals. Dairy-farming and sugar-growing are important industries, and there are several sugar-mills in the neighbourhood; great numbers of horses, also, are bred for the Indian and colonial markets. Tobacco, cereals and fruits are also grown. Grafton has a large shipping trade with Sydney. There is rail-connexion with Brisbane, &c. The city became a municipality in 1859.

GRAFTON, a township in the S.E. part of Worcester county, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Pop. (1905) 5052; (1910) 5705. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford, and the Boston & Albany railways, and by interurban electric lines. The township contains several villages (including Grafton, North Grafton, Saundersville, Fisherville and Farnumsville); the principal village, Grafton, is about 7 m. S.E. of Worcester. The villages are residential suburbs of Worcester, and attract many summer residents. In the village of Grafton there is a public library. There is ample water power from the Blackstone river and its tributaries, and among the manufactures of Grafton are cotton-goods, boots and shoes, &c. Within what is now Grafton stood the Nipmuck Indian village of Hassanamesit. John Eliot, the “apostle to the Indians,” visited it soon after 1651, and organized the third of his bands of “praying Indians” there; in 1671 he established a church for them, the second of the kind in New England, and also a school. In 1654 the Massachusetts General Court granted to the Indians, for their exclusive use, a tract of about 4 sq. m., of which they remained the sole proprietors until 1718, when they sold a small farm to Elisha Johnson, the first permanent white settler in the neighbourhood. In 1728 a group of residents of Marlboro, Sudbury, Concord and Stowe, with the permission of the General Court, bought from the Indians 7500 acres of their lands, and agreed to establish forty English families on the tract within three years, and to maintain a church and school of which the Indians should have free use. The township was incorporated in 1735, and was named in honour of the 2nd duke of Grafton. The last of the pure-blooded Indians died about 1825.

GRAFTON, a city and the county-seat of Taylor county, West Virginia, U.S.A., on Tygart river, about 100 m. by rail S.E. of Wheeling. Pop. (1890) 3159; (1900) 5650, including 226 foreign-born and 162 negroes; (1910) 7563. It is served by four divisions of the Baltimore & Ohio railway, which maintains extensive car shops here. The city is about 1000 ft. above sea-level. It has a small national cemetery, and about 4 m. W., at Pruntytown, is the West Virginia Reform School. Grafton is situated near large coal-fields, and is supplied with natural gas. Among its manufactures are machine-shop and foundry products, window glass and pressed glass ware, and grist mill and planing-mill products. The first settlement was made about 1852, and Grafton was incorporated in 1856 and chartered as a city in 1899. In 1903 the population and area of the city were increased by the annexation of the town of Fetterman (pop. in 1900, 796), of Beaumont (unincorporated), and of other territory.

GRAHAM, SIR GERALD (1831-1899), British general, was born on the 27th of June 1831 at Acton, Middlesex. He was 318 educated at Dresden and Woolwich Academy, and entered the Royal Engineers in 1850. He served with distinction through the Russian War of 1854 to 1856, was present at the battles of the Alma and Inkerman, was twice wounded in the trenches before Sevastopol, and was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at the attack on the Redan and for devoted heroism on numerous occasions. He also received the Legion of Honour, and was promoted to a brevet majority. In the China War of 1860 he took part in the actions of Sin-ho and Tang-ku, the storming of the Taku Forts, where he was severely wounded, and the entry into Peking (brevet lieutenant-colonelcy and C.B.). Promoted colonel in 1869, he was employed in routine duties until 1877, when he was appointed assistant-director of works for barracks at the war office, a position he held until his promotion to major-general in 1881. In command of the advanced force in Egypt in 1882, he bore the brunt of the fighting, was present at the action of Magfar, commanded at the first battle of Kassassin, took part in the second, and led his brigade at Tell-el-Kebir. For his services in the campaign he received the K.C.B. and thanks of parliament. In 1884 he commanded the expedition to the eastern Sudan, and fought the successful battles of El Teb and Tamai. On his return home he received the thanks of parliament and was made a lieutenant-general for distinguished service in the field. In 1885 he commanded the Suakin expedition, defeated the Arabs at Hashin and Tamai, and advanced the railway from Suakin to Otao, when the expedition was withdrawn (thanks of parliament and G.C.M.G.). In 1896 he was made G.C.B., and in 1899 colonel-commandant Royal Engineers. He died on the 17th of December 1899. He published in 1875 a translation of Goetze’s Operations of the German Engineers in 1870-1871, and in 1887 Last Words with Gordon.

GRAHAM, SIR JAMES ROBERT GEORGE, Bart. (1792-1861), British statesman, son of a baronet, was born at Naworth, Cumberland, on the 1st of June 1792, and was educated at Westminster and Oxford. Shortly after quitting the university, while making the “grand tour” abroad, he became private secretary to the British minister in Sicily. Returning to England in 1818 he was elected to parliament as member for Hull in the Whig interest; but he was unseated at the election of 1820. In 1824 he succeeded to the baronetcy; and in 1826 he re-entered parliament as representative for Carlisle, a seat which he soon exchanged for the county of Cumberland. In the same year he published a pamphlet entitled “Corn and Currency,” which brought him into prominence as a man of advanced Liberal opinions; and he became one of the most energetic advocates in parliament of the Reform Bill. On the formation of Earl Grey’s administration he received the post of first lord of the admiralty, with a seat in the cabinet. From 1832 to 1837 he sat for the eastern division of the county of Cumberland. Dissensions on the Irish Church question led to his withdrawal from the ministry in 1834, and ultimately to his joining the Conservative party. Rejected by his former constituents in 1837, he was in 1838 elected for Pembroke, and in 1841 for Dorchester. In the latter year he took office under Sir Robert Peel as secretary of state for the home department, a post he retained until 1846. As home secretary he incurred considerable odium in Scotland, by his unconciliating policy on the church question prior to the “disruption” of 1843; and in 1844 the detention and opening of letters at the post-office by his warrant raised a storm of public indignation, which was hardly allayed by the favourable report of a parliamentary committee of investigation. From 1846 to 1852 he was out of office; but in the latter year he joined Lord Aberdeen’s cabinet as first lord of the admiralty, in which capacity he acted also for a short time in the Palmerston ministry of 1855. The appointment of a select committee of inquiry into the conduct of the Russian war ultimately led to his withdrawal from official life. He continued as a private member to exercise a considerable influence on parliamentary opinion. He died at Netherby, Cumberland, on the 25th of October 1861.

GRAHAM, SYLVESTER (1794-1851), American dietarian, was born in Suffield, Connecticut, in 1794. He studied at Amherst College, and was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry in 1826, but he seems to have preached but little. He became an ardent advocate of temperance reform and of vegetarianism, having persuaded himself that a flesh diet was the cause of abnormal cravings. His last years were spent in retirement and he died at Northampton, Massachusetts, on the 11th of September 1851. His name is now remembered because of his advocacy of unbolted (Graham) flour, and as the originator of “Graham bread.” But his reform was much broader than this. He urged, primarily, physiological education, and in his Science of Human Life (1836; republished, with biographical memoir, 1858) furnished an exhaustive text-book on the subject. He had carefully planned a complete regimen including many details besides a strict diet. A Temperance (or Graham) Boarding House was opened in New York City about 1832 by Mrs Asenath Nicholson, who published Nature’s Own Book (2nd ed., 1835) giving Graham’s rules for boarders; and in Boston a Graham House was opened in 1837 at 23 Brattle Street.

GRAHAM, THOMAS (1805-1869), British chemist, born at Glasgow on the 20th of December 1805, was the son of a merchant of that city. In 1819 he entered the university of Glasgow with the intention of becoming a minister of the Established Church. But under the influence of Thomas Thomson (1773-1852), the professor of chemistry, he developed a taste for experimental science and especially for molecular physics, a subject which formed his main preoccupation throughout his life. After graduating in 1824, he spent two years in the laboratory of Professor T. C. Hope at Edinburgh, and on returning to Glasgow gave lessons in mathematics, and subsequently chemistry, until the year 1829, when he was appointed lecturer in the Mechanics’ Institute. In 1830 he succeeded Dr Andrew Ure (1778-1857) as professor of chemistry in the Andersonian Institution, and in 1837, on the death of Dr Edward Turner, he was transferred to the chair of chemistry in University College, London. There he remained till 1855, when he succeeded Sir John Herschel as Master of the Mint, a post he held until his death on the 16th of September 1869. The onerous duties his work at the Mint entailed severely tried his energies, and in quitting a purely scientific career he was subjected to the cares of official life, for which he was not fitted by temperament. The researches, however, which he conducted between 1861 and 1869 were as brilliant as any of those in which he engaged. Graham was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1836, and a corresponding member of the Institute of France in 1847, while Oxford made him a D. C. L. in 1855. He took a leading part in the foundation of the London Chemical and the Cavendish societies, and served as first president of both, in 1841 and 1846. Towards the close of his life the presidency of the Royal Society was offered him, but his failing health caused him to decline the honour.

Graham’s work is remarkable at once for its originality and for the simplicity of the methods employed obtaining most important results. He communicated papers to the Philosophical Society of Glasgow before the work of that society was recorded in Transactions, but his first published paper, “On the Absorption of Gases by Liquids,” appeared in the Annals of Philosophy for 1826. The subject with which his name is most prominently associated is the diffusion of gases. In his first paper on this subject (1829) he thus summarizes the knowledge experiment had afforded as to the laws which regulate the movement of gases. “Fruitful as the miscibility of gases has been in interesting speculations, the experimental information we possess 319 on the subject amounts to little more than the well-established fact that gases of a different nature when brought into contact do not arrange themselves according to their density, but they spontaneously diffuse through each other so as to remain in an intimate state of mixture for any length of time.” For the fissured jar of J. W. Döbereiner he substituted a glass tube closed by a plug of plaster of Paris, and with this simple appliance he developed the law now known by his name “that the diffusion rate of gases is inversely as the square root of their density.” (See Diffusion.) He further studied the passage of gases by transpiration through fine tubes, and by effusion through a minute hole in a platinum disk, and was enabled to show that gas may enter a vacuum in three different ways: (1) by the molecular movement of diffusion, in virtue of which a gas penetrates through the pores of a disk of compressed graphite; (2) by effusion through an orifice of sensible dimensions in a platinum disk the relative times of the effusion of gases in mass being similar to those of the molecular diffusion, although a gas is usually carried by the former kind of impulse with a velocity many thousand times as great as is demonstrable by the latter; and (3) by the peculiar rate of passage due to transpiration through fine tubes, in which the ratios appear to be in direct relation with no other known property of the same gases—thus hydrogen has exactly double the transpiration rate of nitrogen, the relation of those gases as to density being as 1 : 14. He subsequently examined the passage of gases through septa or partitions of india-rubber, unglazed earthenware and plates of metals such as palladium, and proved that gases pass through these septa neither by diffusion nor effusion nor by transpiration, but in virtue of a selective absorption which the septa appear to exert on the gases in contact with them. By this means (“atmolysis”) he was enabled partially to separate oxygen from air.

His early work on the movements of gases led him to examine the spontaneous movements of liquids, and as a result of the experiments he divided bodies into two classes—crystalloids, such as common salt, and colloids, of which gum-arabic is a type—the former having high and the latter low diffusibility. He also proved that the process of liquid diffusion causes partial decomposition of certain chemical compounds, the potassium sulphate, for instance, being separated from the aluminium sulphate in alum by the higher diffusibility of the former salt. He also extended his work on the transpiration of gases to liquids, adopting the method of manipulation devised by J. L. M. Poiseuille. He found that dilution with water does not effect proportionate alteration in the transpiration velocities of different liquids, and a certain determinable degree of dilution retards the transpiration velocity.

With regard to Graham’s more purely chemical work, in 1833 he showed that phosphoric anhydride and water form three distinct acids, and he thus established the existence of polybasic acids, in each of which one or more equivalents of hydrogen are replaceable by certain metals (see Acid). In 1835 he published the results of an examination of the properties of water of crystallization as a constituent of salts. Not the least interesting part of this inquiry was the discovery of certain definite salts with alcohol analogous to hydrates, to which the name of alcoholates was given. A brief paper entitled “Speculative Ideas on the Constitution of Matter” (1863) possesses special interest in connexion with work done since his death, because in it he expressed the view that the various kinds of matter now recognized as different elementary substances may possess one and the same ultimate or atomic molecule in different conditions of movement.

GRAHAME, JAMES (1765-1811), Scottish poet, was born in Glasgow on the 22nd of April 1765, the son of a successful lawyer. After completing his literary course at Glasgow university, Grahame went in 1784 to Edinburgh, where he qualified as writer to the signet, and subsequently for the Scottish bar, of which he was elected a member in 1795. But his preferences had always been for the Church, and when he was forty-four he took Anglican orders, and became a curate first at Shipton, Gloucestershire, and then at Sedgefield, Durham. His works include a dramatic poem, Mary Queen of Scots (1801), The Sabbath (1804), British Georgics (1804), The Birds of Scotland (1806), and Poems on the Abolition of the Slave Trade (1810). His principal work, The Sabbath, a sacred and descriptive poem in blank verse, is characterized by devotional feeling and by happy delineation of Scottish scenery. In the notes to his poems he expresses enlightened views on popular education, the criminal law and other public questions. He was emphatically a friend of humanity—a philanthropist as well as a poet. He died in Glasgow on the 14th of September 1811.

GRAHAM’S DYKE (or Sheugh = trench), a local name for the Roman fortified frontier, consisting of rampart, forts and road, which ran across the narrow isthmus of Scotland from the Forth to the Clyde (about 36 m.), and formed from A.D. 140 till about 185 the northern frontier of Roman Britain. The name is locally explained as recording a victorious assault on the defences by one Robert Graham and his men; it has also been connected with the Grampian Hills and the Latin surveying term groma. But, as is shown by its earliest recorded spelling, Grymisdyke (Fordun, A.D. 1385), it is the same as the term Grim’s Ditch which occurs several times in England in connexion with early ramparts—for example, near Wallingford in south Oxfordshire or between Berkhampstead (Herts) and Bradenham (Bucks). Grim seems to be a Teutonic god or devil, who might be credited with the wish to build earthworks in unreasonably short periods of time. By antiquaries the Graham’s Dyke is usually styled the Wall of Pius or the Antonine Vallum, after the emperor Antoninus Pius, in whose reign it was constructed. See further Britain: Roman.

GRAHAM’S TOWN, a city of South Africa, the administrative centre for the eastern part of the Cape province, 106 m. by rail N.E. of Port Elizabeth and 43 m. by rail N.N.W. of Port Alfred. Pop. (1904) 13,887, of whom 7283 were whites and 1837 were electors. The town is built in a basin of the grassy hills forming the spurs of the Zuurberg, 1760 ft. above sea-level. It is a pleasant place of residence, has a remarkably healthy climate, and is regarded as the most English-like town in the Cape. The streets are broad, and most of them lined with trees. In the High Street are the law courts, the Anglican cathedral of St George, built from designs by Sir Gilbert Scott, and Commemoration Chapel, the chief place of worship of the Wesleyans, erected by the British emigrants of 1820. The Roman Catholic cathedral of St Patrick, a Gothic building, is to the left of the High Street. The town hall, also in the Gothic style, has a square clock tower built on arches over the pavement. Graham’s Town is one of the chief educational centres in the Cape province. Besides the public schools and the Rhodes University College (which in 1904 took over part of the work carried on since 1855 by St Andrew’s College), scholastic institutions are maintained by religious bodies. The town possesses two large hospitals, which receive patients from all parts of South Africa, and the government bacteriological institute. It is the centre of trade for an extensive pastoral and agricultural district. Owing to the sour quality of the herbage in the surrounding zuurveld, stock-breeding and wool-growing have been, however, to some extent replaced by ostrich-farming, for which industry Graham’s Town is the most important entrepôt. Dairy farming is much practised in the neighbourhood.

In 1812 the site of the town was chosen as the headquarters of the British troops engaged in protecting the frontier of Cape Colony from the inroads of the Kaffirs, and it was named after Colonel John Graham (1778-1821), then commanding the forces. (Graham had commanded the light infantry battalion at the taking of the Cape by the British in the action of the 6th of January 1806. He also took part in campaigns in Italy and Holland during the Napoleonic wars.) In 1819 an attempt was 320 made by the Kaffirs to surprise Graham’s Town, and 10,000 men attacked it, but they were repulsed by the garrison, which numbered not more than 320 men, infantry and artillery, under Lieut.-Colonel (afterwards General Sir) Thomas Willshire. In 1822 the town was chosen as the headquarters of the 4000 British immigrants who had reached Cape Colony in 1820. It has maintained its position as the most important inland town of the eastern part of the Cape province. In 1864 the Cape parliament met in Graham’s Town, the only instance of the legislature sitting elsewhere than in Cape Town. It is governed by a municipality. The rateable value in 1906 was £891,536 and the rate levied 2½d. in the pound.

GRAIL, THE HOLY, the famous talisman of Arthurian romance, the object of quest on the part of the knights of the Round Table. It is mainly, if not wholly, known to English readers through the medium of Malory’s translation of the French Quête du Saint Graal, where it is the cup or chalice of the Last Supper, in which the blood which flowed from the wounds of the crucified Saviour has been miraculously preserved. Students of the original romances are aware that there is in these texts an extraordinary diversity of statement as to the nature and origin of the Grail, and that it is extremely difficult to determine the precise value of these differing versions.1 Broadly speaking the Grail romances have been divided into two main classes: (1) those dealing with the search for the Grail, the Quest, and (2) those relating to its early history. These latter appear to be dependent on the former, for whereas we may have a Quest romance without any insistence on the previous history of the Grail, that history is never found without some allusion to the hero who is destined to bring the quest to its successful termination. The Quest versions again fall into three distinct classes, differentiated by the personality of the hero who is respectively Gawain, Perceval or Galahad. The most important and interesting group is that connected with Perceval, and he was regarded as the original Grail hero, Gawain being, as it were, his understudy. Recent discoveries, however, point to a different conclusion, and indicate that the Gawain stories represent an early tradition, and that we must seek in them rather than in the Perceval versions for indications as to the ultimate origin of the Grail.

The character of this talisman or relic varies greatly, as will be seen from the following summary.

1. Gawain, included in the continuation to Chrétien’s Perceval by Wauchier de Denain, and attributed to Bleheris the Welshman, who is probably identical with the Bledhericus of Giraldus Cambrensis, and considerably earlier than Chrétien de Troyes. Here the Grail is a food-providing, self-acting talisman, the precise nature of which is not specified; it is designated as the “rich” Grail, and serves the king and his court sans serjant et sans seneschal, the butlers providing the guests with wine. In another version, given at an earlier point of the same continuation, but apparently deriving from a later source, the Grail is borne in procession by a weeping maiden, and is called the “holy” Grail, but no details as to its history or character are given. In a third version, that of Diu Crône, a long and confused romance, the origin of which has not been determined, the Grail appears as a reliquary, in which the Host is presented to the king, who once a year partakes alike of it and of the blood which flows from the lance. Another account is given in the prose Lancelot, but here Gawain has been deposed from his post as first hero of the court, and, as is to be expected from the treatment meted out to him in this romance, the visit ends in his complete discomfiture. The Grail is here surrounded with the atmosphere of awe and reverence familiar to us through the Quête, and is regarded as the chalice of the Last Supper. These are the Gawain versions.

2. Perceval.—The most important Perceval text is the Conte del Grael, or Perceval le Galois of Chrétien de Troyes. Here the Grail is wrought of gold richly set with precious stones; it is carried in solemn procession, and the light issuing from it extinguishes that of the candles. What it is is not explained, but inasmuch as it is the vehicle in which is conveyed the Host on which the father of the Fisher king depends for nutriment, it seems not improbable that here, as in Diu Crône, it is to be understood as a reliquary. In the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach, the ultimate source of which is identical with that of Chrétien, on the contrary, the Grail is represented as a precious stone, brought to earth by angels, and committed to the guardianship of the Grail king and his descendants. It is guarded by a body of chosen knights, or templars, and acts alike as a life and youth preserving talisman—no man may die within eight days of beholding it, and the maiden who bears it retains perennial youth—and an oracle choosing its own servants, and indicating whom the Grail king shall wed. The sole link with the Christian tradition is the statement that its virtue is renewed every Good Friday by the agency of a dove from heaven. The discrepancy between this and the other Grail romances is most startling.

In the short prose romance known as the “Didot” Perceval we have, for the first time, the whole history of the relic logically set forth. The Perceval forms the third and concluding section of a group of short romances, the two preceding being the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. In the first we have the precise history of the Grail, how it was the dish of the Last Supper, confided by our Lord to the care of Joseph, whom he miraculously visited in the prison to which he had been committed by the Jews. It was subsequently given by Joseph to his brother-in-law Brons, whose grandson Perceval is destined to be the final winner and guardian of the relic. The Merlin forms the connecting thread between this definitely ecclesiastical romance and the chivalric atmosphere of Arthur’s court; and finally, in the Perceval, the hero, son of Alain and grandson to Brons, is warned by Merlin of the quest which awaits him and which he achieves after various adventures.

In the Perlesvaus the Grail is the same, but the working out of the scheme is much more complex; a son of Joseph of Arimathea, Josephe, is introduced, and we find a spiritual knighthood similar to that used so effectively in the Parzival.

3. Galahad.—The Quête du Saint Graal, the only romance of which Galahad is the hero, is dependent on and a completion of the Lancelot development of the Arthurian cycle. Lancelot, as lover of Guinevere, could not be permitted to achieve so spiritual an emprise, yet as leading knight of Arthur’s court it was impossible to allow him to be surpassed by another. Hence the invention of Galahad, son to Lancelot by the Grail king’s daughter; predestined by his lineage to achieve the quest, foredoomed, the quest achieved, to vanish, a sacrifice to his father’s fame, which, enhanced by connexion with the Grail-winner, could not risk eclipse by his presence. Here the Grail, the chalice of the Last Supper, is at the same time, as in the Gawain stories, self-acting and food-supplying.

The last three romances unite, it will be seen, the quest and the early history. Introductory to the Galahad quest, and dealing only with the early history, is the Grand Saint Graal, a work of interminable length, based upon the Joseph of Arimathea, which has undergone numerous revisions and amplifications: its precise relation to the Lancelot, with which it has now much matter in common, is not easy to determine.

To be classed also under the head of early history are certain interpolations in the MSS. of the Perceval, where we find the Joseph tradition, but in a somewhat different form, e.g. he is said to have caused the Grail to be made for the purpose of receiving the holy blood. With this account is also connected the legend of the Volto Santo of Lucca, a crucifix said to have been carved by Nicodemus. In the conclusion to Chrétien’s poem, composed by Manessier some fifty years later, the Grail is said to have followed Joseph to Britain, how, is not explained. 321 Another continuation by Gerbert, interpolated between those of Wauchier and Manessier, relates how the Grail was brought to Britain by Perceval’s mother in the companionship of Joseph.

It will be seen that with the exception of the Grand Saint Graal, which has now been practically converted into an introduction to the Quête, no two versions agree with each other; indeed, with the exception of the oldest Gawain-Grail visit, that due to Bleheris, they do not agree with themselves, but all show, more or less, the influence of different and discordant versions. Why should the vessel of the Last Supper, jealously guarded at Castle Corbenic, visit Arthur’s court independently? Why does a sacred relic provide purely material food? What connexion can there be between a precious stone, a baetylus, as Dr Hagen has convincingly shown, and Good Friday? These, and such questions as these, suggest themselves at every turn.

Numerous attempts have been made to solve these problems, and to construct a theory of the origin of the Grail story, but so far the difficulty has been to find an hypothesis which would admit of the practically simultaneous existence of apparently contradictory features. At one time considered as an introduction from the East, the theory of the Grail as an Oriental talisman has now been discarded, and the expert opinion of the day may be said to fall into two groups: (1) those who hold the Grail to have been from the first a purely Christian vessel which has accidentally, and in a manner never clearly explained, acquired certain folk-lore characteristics; and (2) those who hold, on the contrary, that the Grail is aborigine folk-lore and Celtic, and that the Christian development is a later and accidental rather than an essential feature of the story. The first view is set forth in the work of Professor Birch-Hirschfeld, the second in that of Mr Alfred Nutt, the two constituting the only travaux d’ensemble which have yet appeared on the subject. It now seems probable that both are in a measure correct, and that the ultimate solution will be recognized to lie in a blending of two originally independent streams of tradition. The researches of Professor Mannhardt in Germany and of J. G. Frazer in England have amply demonstrated the enduring influence exercised on popular thought and custom by certain primitive forms of vegetation worship, of which the most noteworthy example is the so-called mysteries of Adonis. Here the ordinary processes of nature and progression of the seasons were symbolized under the figure of the death and resuscitation of the god. These rites are found all over the world, and in his monumental work, The Golden Bough, Dr Frazer has traced a host of extant beliefs and practices to this source. The earliest form of the Grail story, the Gawain-Bleheris version, exhibits a marked affinity with the characteristic features of the Adonis or Tammuz worship; we have a castle on the sea-shore, a dead body on a bier, the identity of which is never revealed, mourned over with solemn rites; a wasted country, whose desolation is mysteriously connected with the dead man, and which is restored to fruitfulness when the quester asks the meaning of the marvels he beholds (the two features of the weeping women and the wasted land being retained in versions where they have no significance); finally the mysterious food-providing, self-acting talisman of a common feast—one and all of these features may be explained as survivals of the Adonis ritual. Professor Martin long since suggested that a key to the problems of the Arthurian cycle was to be found in a nature myth: Professor Rhys regards Arthur as an agricultural hero; Dr Lewis Mott has pointed out the correspondence between the so-called Round Table sites and the ritual of nature worship; but it is only with the discovery of the existence of Bleheris as reputed authority for Arthurian tradition, and the consequent recognition that the Grail story connected with his name is the earliest form of the legend, that we have secured a solid basis for such theories.

With regard to the religious form of the story, recent research has again aided us—we know now that a legend similar in all respects to the Joseph of Arimathea Grail story was widely current at least a century before our earliest Grail texts. The story with Nicodemus as protagonist is told of the Saint-Sang relic at Fécamp; and, as stated already, a similar origin is ascribed to the Volto Santo at Lucca. In this latter case the legend professes to date from the 8th century, and scholars who have examined the texts in their present form consider that there may be solid ground for this attribution. It is thus demonstrable that the material for our Grail legend, in its present form, existed long anterior to any extant text, and there is no improbability in holding that a confused tradition of pagan mysteries which had assumed the form of a popular folk-tale, became finally Christianized by combination with an equally popular ecclesiastical legend, the point of contact being the vessel of the common ritual feast. Nor can there be much doubt that in this process of combination the Fécamp legend played an important rôle. The best and fullest of the Perceval MSS. refer to a book written at Fécamp as source for certain Perceval adventures. What this book was we do not know, but in face of the fact that certain special Fécamp relics, silver knives, appear in the Grail procession of the Parzival, it seems most probable that it was a Perceval-Grail story. The relations between the famous Benedictine abbey and the English court both before and after the Conquest were of an intimate character. Legends of the part played by Joseph of Arimathea in the conversion of Britain are closely connected with Glastonbury, the monks of which foundation showed, in the 12th century, considerable literary activity, and it seems a by no means improbable hypothesis that the present form of the Grail legend may be due to a monk of Glastonbury elaborating ideas borrowed from Fécamp. This much is certain, that between the Saint-Sang of Fécamp, the Volto Santo of Lucca, and the Grail tradition, there exists a connecting link, the precise nature of which has yet to be determined. The two former were popular objects of pilgrimage; was the third originally intended to serve the same purpose by attracting attention to the reputed burial-place of the apostle of the Grail, Joseph of Arimathea?

322

GRAIN (derived through the French from Lat. granum, seed, from an Aryan root meaning “to wear down,” which also appears in the common Teutonic word “corn”), a word particularly applied to the seed, in botanical language the “fruit,” of cereals, and hence applied, as a collective term to cereal plants generally, to which, in English, the term “corn” is also applied (see Grain Trade). Apart from this, the chief meaning, the word is used of the malt refuse of brewing and distilling, and of many hard rounded small particles, resembling the seeds of plants, such as “grains” of sand, salt, gold, gunpowder, &c. “Grain” is also the name of the smallest unit of weight, both in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Its origin is supposed to be the weight of a grain of wheat, dried and gathered from the middle of the ear. The troy grain = 1/5760 of a ℔, the avoirdupois grain = 1/7000 of a ℔. In diamond weighing the grain = ¼ of the carat, = .7925 of the troy grain. The word “grains” was early used, as also in French, of the small seed-like insects supposed formerly to be the berries of trees, from which a scarlet dye was extracted (see Cochineal and Kermes). From the Fr. en graine, literally in dye, comes the French verb engrainer, Eng. “engrain” or “ingrain,” meaning to dye in any fast colour. From the further use of “grain” for the texture of substances, such as wood, meat, &c., “engrained” or “ingrained” means ineradicable, impregnated, dyed through and through. The “grain” of leather is the side of a skin showing the fibre after the hair has been removed. The imitating in paint of the grain of different kinds of woods is known as “graining” (see Painter-Work). “Grain,” or more commonly in the plural “grains,” construed as a singular, is the name of an instrument with two or more barbed prongs, used for spearing fish. This word is Scandinavian in origin, and is connected with Dan. green, Swed. gren, branch, and means the fork of a tree, of the body, or the prongs of a fork, &c. It is not connected with “groin,” the inguinal parts of the body, which in its earliest forms appears as grynde.

GRAINS OF PARADISE, Guinea Grains, or Melegueta Pepper (Ger. Paradieskörner, Fr. graines de Paradis, maniguette), the seeds of Amomum Melegueta, a reed-like plant of the natural order Zingiberaceae. It is a native of tropical western Africa, and of Prince’s and St Thomas’s islands in the Gulf of Guinea, is cultivated in other tropical countries, and may with ease be grown in hothouses in temperate climates. The plant has a branched horizontal rhizome; smooth, nearly sessile, narrowly lanceolate-oblong alternate leaves; large, white, pale pink or purplish flowers; and an ovate-oblong fruit, ensheathed in bracts, which is of a scarlet colour when fresh, and reaches under cultivation a length of 5 in. The seeds are contained in the acid pulp of the fruit, are commonly wedge-shaped and bluntly angular, are about 1¼ lines in diameter and have a glossy dark-brown husk, with a conical light-coloured membranous caruncle at the base and a white kernel. They contain, according to Flückiger and Hanbury, 0.3% of a faintly yellowish neutral essential oil, having an aromatic, not acrid taste, and a specific gravity at 15.5° C of 0.825, and giving on analysis the formula C20H32O, or C10H16 + C10H16O; also 5.83% of an intensely pungent, viscid, brown resin.

Grains of paradise were formerly officinal in British pharmacopoeias, and in the 13th and succeeding centuries were used as a drug and a spice, the wine known as hippocras being flavoured with them and with ginger and cinnamon. In 1629 they were employed among the ingredients of the twenty-four herring pies which were the ancient fee-favour of the city of Norwich, ordained to be carried to court by the lord of the manor of Carleton (Johnston and Church, Chem. of Common Life, p. 355, 1879). Grains of paradise were anciently brought overland from West Africa to the Mediterranean ports of the Barbary states, to be shipped for Italy. They are now exported almost exclusively from the Gold Coast. Grains of paradise are to some extent used illegally to give a fictitious strength to malt liquors, gin and cordials. By 56 Geo. III. c. 58, no brewer or dealer in beer shall have in his possession or use grains of paradise, under a penalty of £200 for each offence; and no druggist shall sell the same to a brewer under a penalty of £500. They are, however, devoid of any injurious physiological action, and are much esteemed as a spice by the natives of Guinea.

GRAIN TRADE. The complexity of the conditions of life in the 20th century may be well illustrated from the grain trade of the world. The ordinary bread sold in Great Britain represents, for example, produce of nearly every country in the world outside the tropics.

Wheat has been cultivated from remote antiquity. In a wild state it is practically unknown. It is alleged to have been found growing wild between the Euphrates and the Tigris; but the discovery has never been authenticated, General considerations. and, unless the plant be sedulously cared for, the species dies out in a surprisingly short space of time. Modern experiments in cross-fertilization in Lancashire by the Garton Brothers have evolved the most extraordinary “sports,” showing, it is claimed, that the plant has probably passed through stages of which until the present day there had been no conception. The tales that grains of wheat found in the cerements of Egyptian mummies have been planted and come to maturity are no longer credited, for the vital principle in the wheat berry is extremely evanescent; indeed, it is doubtful whether wheat twenty years old is capable of reproduction. The Garton artificial fertilization experiments have shown endless deviations from the ordinary type, ranging from minute seeds with a closely adhering husk to big berries almost as large as sloes and about as worthless. It is conjectured that the wheat plant, as now known, is a degenerate form of something much finer which flourished thousands of years ago, and that possibly it may be restored to its pristine excellence, yielding an increase twice or thrice as large as it now does, thus postponing to a distant period the famine doom prophesied by Sir W. Crookes in his presidential address to the British Association in 1898. Wheat well repays careful attention; contrast the produce of a carelessly tilled Russian or Indian field and the bountiful yield on a good Lincolnshire farm, the former with its average yield of 8 bushels, the latter with its 50 bushels per acre; or compare the quality, as regards the quantity and flavour of the flour from a fine sample of British wheat, such as is on sale at almost every agricultural show in Great Britain, with the produce of an Egyptian or Syrian field; the difference is so great as to cause one to doubt whether the berries are of the same species.

It may be stated roundly that an average quartern loaf in Great Britain is made from wheat grown in the following countries in the proportions named:—

For details connected with grain and its handling see Agriculture, Corn Laws, Granaries, Flour, Baking, Wheat, &c.

Wheat occupies of all cereals the widest region of any food-stuff. Rice, which shares with millet the distinction of being the principal food-stuff of the greatest number of human beings, is not grown nearly as widely as is wheat, the staple food of the white races. Wheat grows as far south as Patagonia, and as far north as the edge of the Arctic Circle; it flourishes throughout Europe, and across the whole of northern Asia and in Japan; it is cultivated in Persia, and raised largely in India, as far south as the Nizam’s dominions. It is grown over nearly the whole of North America. In Canada a very fine wheat crop was raised in the autumn of 1898 as far north as the mission at Fort Providence, on the Mackenzie river, in a latitude above 62°—or less than 200 m. south of the latitude of Dawson City—the period between seed-time and harvest having been ninety-one 323 days. In Africa it was an article of commerce in the days of Jacob, whose son Joseph may be said to have run the first and only successful “corner” in wheat. For many centuries Egypt was famous as a wheat raiser; it was a cargo of wheat from Alexandria which St Paul helped to jettison on one of his shipwrecks, as was also, in all probability, that of the “ship of Alexandria whose sign was Castor and Pollux,” named in the same narrative. General Gordon is quoted as having stated that the Sudan if properly settled would be capable of feeding the whole of Europe. Along the north coast of Africa are areas which, if properly irrigated, as was done in the days of Carthage, could produce enough wheat to feed half of the Caucasian race. For instance, the vilayet of Tripoli, with an area of 400,000 sq. m., or three times the extent of Great Britain and Ireland, according to the opinion of a British consul, could raise millions of acres of wheat. The cereal flourishes on all the high plateaus of South Africa, from Cape Town to the Zambezi. Land is being extensively put under wheat in the pampas of South America and in the prairies of Siberia.

In the raising of the standard of farming to an English level the volume of the world’s crop would be trebled, another fact which Sir William Crookes seems to have overlooked. The experiments of the late Sir J. B. Lawes in Hertfordshire have proved that the natural fruitfulness of the wheat plant can be increased threefold by the application of the proper fertilizer. The results of these experiments will be found in a compendium issued from the Rothamsted Agricultural Experimental Station.

It is by no means, however, the wheat which yields the greatest number of bushels per acre which is the most valuable from a miller’s standpoint, for the thinness of the bran and the fineness and strength of the flour are with him important considerations, too often overlooked by the farmer when buying his seed. Nevertheless it is the deficient quantity of the wheat raised in the British Islands, and not the quality of the grain, which has been the cause of so much anxiety to economists and statesmen.

Sir J. Caird, writing in the year 1880, expressed the opinion that arable land in Great Britain would always command a substantial rent of at least 30s. per acre. His figures were based on the assumption that wheat was imported Freight rates. duty free. He calculated that the cost of carriage from abroad of wheat, or the equivalent of the product of an acre of good wheat land in Great Britain, would not be less than 30s. per ton. But freights had come down by 1900 to half the rates predicated by Caird; indeed, during a portion of the interval they ruled very close to zero, as far as steamer freights from America were concerned. In 1900 an all-round freight rate for wheat might be taken at 15s. per ton (a ton representing approximately the produce of an acre of good wheat land in England), say from 10s. for Atlantic American and Russian, to 30s. for Pacific American and Australian; about midway between these two extremes we find Indian and Argentine, the greatest bulk coming at about the 15s. rate. Inferior land bearing less than 4½ quarters per acre would not be protected to the same extent, and moreover, seeing that a portion of the British wheat crop has to stand a charge as heavy for land carriage across a county as that borne by foreign wheat across a continent or an ocean, the protection is not nearly so substantial as Caird would make out. The compilation showing the changes in the rates of charges for the railway and other transportation services issued by the Division of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A. (Miscellaneous series, Bulletin No. 15, 1898), is a valuable reference book. From its pages are culled the following facts relating to the changes in the rates of freight up to the year 1897.1 In Table 3 the average rates per ton per mile in cents are shown since 1846. For the Fitchburg Railroad the rate for that year was 4.523 cents per ton per mile, since when a great and almost continuous fall has been taking place, until in 1897, the latest year given, the rate had declined to .870 of a cent per ton per mile. The railway which shows the greatest fall is the Chesapeake & Ohio, for the charge has fallen from over 7 cents in 1862 and 1863 to .419 of a cent in 1897, whereas the Erie rates have fallen only from 1.948 in 1852 to .609 in 1897. Putting the rates of the twelve returning railways together, we find the average freight in the two years 1859-1860 was 3.006 cents per ton per mile, and that in 1896-1897 the average rate had fallen to .797 of a cent per ton per mile. This difference is very large compared with the smallness of the unit. Coming to the rates on grain, we find (in Table 23) a record for the forty years 1858-1897 of the charge on wheat from Chicago to New York, via all rail from 1858, and via lake and rail since 1868, the authority being the secretary of the Chicago Board of Trade. From 1858 to 1862 the rate varied between 42.37 and 34.80 cents per bushel for the whole trip of roundly 1000 m., the average rate in the quinquennium being 38.43. In the five years immediately prior to the time at which Sir J. Caird expressed the opinion that the cost of carriage from abroad would always protect the British grower, the average all-rail freight from Chicago to New York was 17.76 cents, while the summer rate (partly by water) was 13.17 cents. These rates in 1897, the last year shown on the table, had fallen to 12.50 and 7.42 respectively. The rates have been as follows in quinquennial periods, via all rail:—

Chicago to New York in Cents per Bushel.

Calculating roundly a cent as equal to a halfpenny, and eight bushels to the quarter, the above would appear in English currency as follows:—

Chicago to New York in Shillings and Pence per Quarter.

Another table (No. 38) shows the average rates from Chicago to New York by lakes, canal and river. These in their quinquennial periods are given for the season as follows:—

In Cents per Bushel of 60 ℔.

In Shillings and Pence per Quarter of 480 ℔.

In Shillings and Pence per Ton of 2240 ℔.

This latter mode is the cheapest by which grain can be carried to the eastern seaboard from the American prairies, and it can now be done at a cost of 7s. 6d. per ton. The ocean freight has to be added before the grain can be delivered free on the quay at Liverpool. A rate from New York to Liverpool of 2½d. per bushel, or 7s. 10d. per ton, a low rate, reached in Dec. 1900, is yet sufficiently high, it is claimed, to leave a profit; indeed, there have frequently been times when the rate was as low as 1d. per bushel, or 3s. 1d. per ton; and in periods of great trade depression wheat is carried from New York to Liverpool as ballast, being paid for by the ship-owner. Another route worked more cheaply than formerly is that by river, from the centre of the winter wheat belt, say at St Louis, to New Orleans, and thence by steamer to Liverpool. The river rate has fallen below five 324 cents per bushel, or 7s. per ton, 2240 ℔. In Table No. 71 the cost of transportation is compared year by year with the export price of the two leading cereals in the States as follows:—

Wheat and Corn—Export Prices and Transportation Rates compared.