THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ELEVENTH EDITION

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

All rights reserved

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A

DICTIONARY

OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XII

GICHTEL to HARMONIUM

New York

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

342 Madison Avenue

Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,
by
The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.

Articles in This Slice

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XII. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS,1 WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE
ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

1

GICHTEL, JOHANN GEORG (1638-1710), German mystic, was born at Regensburg, where his father was a member of senate, on the 14th of March 1638. Having acquired at school an acquaintance with Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and even Arabic, he proceeded to Strassburg to study theology; but finding the theological prelections of J. S. Schmidt and P. J. Spener distasteful, he entered the faculty of law. He was admitted an advocate, first at Spires, and then at Regensburg; but having become acquainted with the baron Justinianus von Weltz (1621-1668), a Hungarian nobleman who cherished schemes for the reunion of Christendom and the conversion of the world, and having himself become acquainted with another world in dreams and visions, he abandoned all interest in his profession, and became an energetic promoter of the “Christerbauliche Jesusgesellschaft,” or Christian Edification Society of Jesus. The movement in its beginnings provoked at least no active hostility; but when Gichtel began to attack the teaching of the Lutheran clergy and church, especially upon the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, he exposed himself to a prosecution which resulted in sentence of banishment and confiscation (1665). After many months of wandering and occasionally romantic adventure, he reached Holland in January 1667, and settled at Zwolle, where he co-operated with Friedrich Breckling (1629-1711), who shared his views and aspirations. Having become involved in the troubles of this friend, Gichtel, after a period of imprisonment, was banished for a term of years from Zwolle, but finally in 1668 found a home in Amsterdam, where he made the acquaintance of Antoinette Bourignon (1616-1680), and in a state of poverty (which, however, never became destitution) lived out his strange life of visions and day-dreams, of prophecy and prayer. He became an ardent disciple of Jakob Boehme, whose works he published in 1682 (Amsterdam, 2 vols.); but before the time of his death, on the 21st of January 1710, he had attracted to himself a small band of followers known as Gichtelians or Brethren of the Angels, who propagated certain views at which he had arrived independently of Boehme. Seeking ever to hear the authoritative voice of God within them, and endeavouring to attain to a life altogether free from carnal desires, like that of “the angels in heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage,” they claimed to exercise a priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek,” appeasing the wrath of God, and ransoming the souls of the lost by sufferings endured vicariously after the example of Christ. While, however, Boehme “desired to remain a faithful son of the Church,” the Gichtelians became Separatists (cf. J. A. Dorner, History of Protestant Theology, ii. p. 185).

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA REED (1795-1864), American statesman, prominent in the anti-slavery conflict, was born at Tioga Point, now Athens, Bradford county, Pennsylvania, on the 6th of October 1795. In 1806 his parents removed to Ashtabula county, Ohio, then sparsely settled and almost a wilderness. The son worked on his father’s farm, and, though he received no systematic education, devoted much time to study and reading. For several years after 1814 he was a school teacher, but in February 1821 he was admitted to the Ohio bar and soon obtained a large practice, particularly in criminal cases. From 1831 to 1837 he was in partnership with Benjamin F. Wade. He served in the lower house of the state legislature in 1826-1828, and from December 1838 until March 1859 was a member of the national House of Representatives, first as a Whig, then as a Free-soiler, and finally as a Republican. Recognizing that slavery was a state institution, with which the Federal government had no authority to interfere, he contended that slavery could only exist by a specific state enactment, that therefore slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories was unlawful and should be abolished, that the coastwise slave-trade in vessels flying the national flag, like the international slave-trade, should be rigidly suppressed, and that Congress had no power to pass any act which in any way could be construed as a recognition of slavery as a national institution. His attitude in the so-called “Creole Case” attracted particular attention. In 1841 some slaves who were being carried in the brig “Creole” from Hampton Roads, Virginia, to New Orleans, revolted, killed the captain, gained possession of the vessel, and soon afterwards entered the British port of Nassau. Thereupon, according to British law, they became free. The minority who had taken an active part in the revolt were arrested on a charge of murder, and the others were liberated. Efforts were made by the United States government to recover the slaves, Daniel Webster, then secretary of state, asserting that on an American ship they were under the jurisdiction of the United States and that they were legally property. On the 21st of March 1842, before the case 2 was settled, Giddings introduced in the House of Representatives a series of resolutions, in which he asserted that “in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty” the slaves “violated no law of the United States.” For offering these resolutions Giddings was attacked with rancour, and was formally censured by the House. Thereupon he resigned, appealed to his constituents, and was immediately re-elected by a large majority. In 1859 he was not renominated, and retired from Congress after a continuous service of more than twenty years. From 1861 until his death, at Montreal, on the 27th of May 1864, he was U.S. consul-general in Canada. Giddings published a series of political essays signed “Pacificus” (1843); Speeches in Congress (1853); The Exiles of Florida (1858); and a History of the Rebellion: Its Authors and Causes (1864).

GIDEON (in Hebrew, perhaps “hewer” or “warrior”), liberator, reformer and “judge” of Israel, was the son of Joash, of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, and had his home at Ophrah near Shechem. His name occurs in Heb. xi. 32, in a list of those who became heroes by faith; but, except in Judges vi.-viii., is not to be met with elsewhere in the Old Testament. He lived at a time when the nomad tribes of the south and east made inroads upon Israel, destroying all that they could not carry away. Two accounts of his deeds are preserved (see Judges). According to one (Judges vi. 11-24) Yahweh appeared under the holy tree which was in the possession of Joash and summoned Gideon to undertake, in dependence on supernatural direction and help, the work of liberating his country from its long oppression, and, in token that he accepted the mission, he erected in Ophrah an altar which he called “Yahweh-Shalom” (Yahweh is peace). According to another account (vi. 25-32) Gideon was a great reformer who was commanded by Yahweh to destroy the altar of Baal belonging to his father and the ashērah or sacred post by its side. The townsmen discovered the sacrilege and demanded his death. His father, who, as guardian of the sacred place, was priest of Baal, enjoined the men not to take up Baal’s quarrel, for “if Baal be a god, let him contend (rīb) for himself.” Hence Gideon received the name Jerubbaal.1 From this latter name appearing regularly in the older narrative (cf. ix.), and from the varying usage in vi.-viii., it has been held that stories of two distinct heroes (Gideon and Jerubbaal) have been fused in the complicated account which follows.2

The great gathering of the Midianites and their allies on the north side of the plain of Jezreel; the general muster first of Abiezer, then of all Manasseh, and lastly of the neighbouring tribes of Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali; the signs by which the wavering faith of Gideon was steadied; the methods by which an unwieldy mob was reduced to a small but trusty band of energetic and determined men; and the stratagem by which the vast army of Midian was surprised and routed by the handful of Israelites descending from “above Endor,” are indicated fully in the narratives, and need not be detailed here. The difficulties in the account of the subsequent flight of the Midianites appear to have arisen from the composite character of the narratives, and there are signs that in one of them Gideon was accompanied only by his own clansmen (vi. 34). So, when the Midianites are put to flight, according to one representation, the Ephraimites are called out to intercept them, and the two chiefs, Ōrēb (“raven”) and Zeēb (“wolf”), in making for the fords of the Jordan, are slain at “the raven’s rock” and “the wolf’s press” respectively. As the sequel of this we are told that the Ephraimites quarrelled with Gideon because their assistance had not been invoked earlier, and their anger was only appeased by his tactful reply (viii. 1-3; contrast xii. 1-6). The other narrative speaks of the pursuit of the Midianite chiefs Zebah and Zalmunna3 across the northern end of Jordan, past Succoth and Penuel to the unidentified place Ḳarḳor. Having taken relentless vengeance on the men of Penuel and Succoth, who had shown a timid neutrality when the patriotic struggle was at its crisis, Gideon puts the two chiefs to death to avenge his brothers whom they had killed at Tabor.4 The overthrow of Midian (cf. Is. ix. 4, x. 26; Ps. lxxxiii. 9-12) induced “Israel” to offer Gideon the kingdom. It was refused—out of religious scruples (viii. 22 seq.; cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7, x. 19, xii. 12, 17, 19), and the ephod idol which he set up at Ophrah in commemoration of the victory was regarded by a later editor (v. 27) as a cause of apostasy to the people and a snare to Gideon and his house; see, however, Ephod. Gideon’s achievements would naturally give him a more than merely local authority, and after his death the attempt was made by one of his sons to set himself up as chief (see Abimelech).

GIEBEL, CHRISTOPH GOTTFRIED ANDREAS (1820-1881), German zoologist and palaeontologist, was born on the 13th of September 1820 at Quedlinburg in Saxony, and educated at the university of Halle, where he graduated Ph.D. in 1845. In 1858 he became professor of zoology and director of the museum in the university of Halle. He died at Halle on the 14th of November 1881. His chief publications were Paläozoologie (1846); Fauna der Vorwelt (1847-1856); Deutschlands Petrefacten (1852); Odontographie (1855); Lehrbuch der Zoologie (1857); Thesaurus ornithologiae (1872-1877);

GIEN, a town of central France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Loiret, situated on the right bank of the Loire, 39 m. E.S.E. of Orleans by rail. Pop. (1906) 6325. Gien is a picturesque and interesting town and has many curious old houses. The Loire is here crossed by a stone bridge of twelve arches, built by Anne de Beaujeu, daughter of Louis XI., about the end of the 15th century. Near it stands a statue of Vercingetorix. The principal building is the old castle used as a law-court, constructed of brick and stone arranged in geometrical patterns, and built in 1494 by Anne de Beaujeu. The church of St Pierre possesses a square tower dating from the end of the 15th century. Porcelain is manufactured.

GIERS, NICHOLAS KARLOVICH DE (1820-1895), Russian statesman, was born on the 21st of May 1820. Like his predecessor, Prince Gorchakov, he was educated at the lyceum of Tsarskoye Selo, near St Petersburg, but his career was much less rapid, because he had no influential protectors, and was handicapped by being a Protestant of Teutonic origin. At the age of eighteen he entered the service of the Eastern department of the ministry of foreign affairs, and spent more than twenty years in subordinate posts, chiefly in south-eastern Europe, until he was promoted in 1863 to the post of minister plenipotentiary in Persia. Here he remained for six years, and, after serving as a minister in Switzerland and Sweden, he was appointed in 1875 director of the Eastern department and assistant minister for foreign affairs under Prince Gorchakov, whose niece he had married. No sooner had he entered on his new duties than his great capacity for arduous work was put to a severe test. Besides events in central Asia, to which he had to devote much attention, the Herzegovinian insurrection had broken out, and he could perceive from secret official papers that the incident had far-reaching ramifications unknown to the general public. Soon this became apparent to all the world. While the Austrian officials in Dalmatia, with hardly a pretence of concealment, were assisting the insurgents, Russian volunteers were flocking to Servia with the connivance of the Russian and Austrian governments, and General Ignatiev, as ambassador in 3 Constantinople, was urging his government to take advantage of the palpable weakness of Turkey for bringing about a radical solution of the Eastern question. Prince Gorchakov did not want a radical solution involving a great European war, but he was too fond of ephemeral popularity to stem the current of popular excitement. Alexander II., personally averse from war, was not insensible to the patriotic enthusiasm, and halted between two opinions. M. de Giers was one of the few who gauged the situation accurately. As an official and a man of non-Russian extraction he had to be extremely reticent, but to his intimate friends he condemned severely the ignorance and light-hearted recklessness of those around him. The event justified his sombre previsions, but did not cure the recklessness of the so-called patriots. They wished to defy Europe in order to maintain intact the treaty of San Stefano, and again M. de Giers found himself in an unpopular minority. He had to remain in the background, but all the influence he possessed was thrown into the scale of peace. His views, energetically supported by Count Shuvalov, finally prevailed, and the European congress assembled at Berlin. He was not present at the congress, and consequently escaped the popular odium for the concessions which Russia had to make to Great Britain and Austria. From that time he was practically minister of foreign affairs, for Prince Gorchakov was no longer capable of continued intellectual exertion, and lived mostly abroad. On the death of Alexander II. in 1881 it was generally expected that M. de Giers would be dismissed as deficient in Russian nationalist feeling, for Alexander III. was credited with strong anti-German Slavophil tendencies. In reality the young tsar had no intention of embarking on wild political adventures, and was fully determined not to let his hand be forced by men less cautious than himself. What he wanted was a minister of foreign affairs who would be at once vigilant and prudent, active and obedient, and who would relieve him from the trouble and worry of routine work while allowing him to control the main lines, and occasionally the details, of the national policy. M. de Giers was exactly what he wanted, and accordingly the tsar not only appointed him minister of foreign affairs on the retirement of Prince Gorchakov in 1882, but retained him to the end of his reign in 1894. In accordance with the desire of his august master, M. de Giers followed systematically a pacific policy. Accepting as a fait accompli the existence of the triple alliance, created by Bismarck for the purpose of resisting any aggressive action on the part of Russia and France, he sought to establish more friendly relations with the cabinets of Berlin, Vienna and Rome. To the advances of the French government he at first turned a deaf ear, but when the rapprochement between the two countries was effected with little or no co-operation on his part, he utilized it for restraining France and promoting Russian interests. He died on the 26th of January 1895, soon after the accession of Nicholas II.

GIESEBRECHT, WILHELM VON (1814-1889), German historian, was a son of Karl Giesebrecht (d. 1832), and a nephew of the poet Ludwig Giesebrecht (1792-1873). Born in Berlin on the 5th of March 1814, he studied under Leopold von Ranke, and his first important work, Geschichte Ottos II., was contributed to Ranke’s Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter dem sächsischen Hause (Berlin, 1837-1840); In 1841 he published his Jahrbücher des Klosters Altaich, a reconstruction of the lost Annales Altahenses, a medieval source of which fragments only were known to be extant, and these were obscured in other chronicles. The brilliance of this performance was shown in 1867, when a copy of the original chronicle was found, and it was seen that Giesebrecht’s text was substantially correct. In the meantime he had been appointed Oberlehrer in the Joachimsthaler Gymnasium in Berlin; had paid a visit to Italy, and as a result of his researches there had published De litterarum studiis apud Italos primis medii aevi seculis (Berlin, 1845), a study upon the survival of culture in Italian cities during the middle ages, and also several critical essays upon the sources for the early history of the popes. In 1851 appeared his translation of the Historiae of Gregory of Tours, which is the standard German translation. Four years later appeared the first volume of his great work, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, the fifth volume of which was published in 1888. This work was the first in which the results of the scientific methods of research were thrown open to the world at large. Largeness of style and brilliance of portrayal were joined to an absolute mastery of the sources in a way hitherto unachieved by any German historian. Yet later German historians have severely criticized his glorification of the imperial era with its Italian entanglements, in which the interests of Germany were sacrificed for idle glory. Giesebrecht’s history, however, appeared when the new German empire was in the making, and became popular owing both to its patriotic tone and its intrinsic merits. In 1857 he went to Königsberg as professor ordinarius, and in 1862 succeeded H. von Sybel as professor of history in the university of Munich. The Bavarian government honoured him in various ways, and he died at Munich on the 17th of December 1889. In addition to the works already mentioned, Giesebrecht published a good monograph on Arnold of Brescia (Munich, 1873), a collection of essays under the title Deutsche Reden (Munich, 1871), and was an active member of the group of scholars who took over the direction of the Monumenta Germaniae historica in 1875. In 1895 B. von Simson added a sixth volume to the Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, thus bringing the work down to the death of the emperor Frederick I. in 1190.

GIESELER, JOHANN KARL LUDWIG (1792-1854), German writer on church history, was born on the 3rd of March 1792 at Petershagen, near Minden, where his father, Georg Christof Friedrich, was preacher. In his tenth year he entered the orphanage at Halle, whence he duly passed to the university, his studies being interrupted, however, from October 1813 till the peace of 1815 by a period of military service, during which he was enrolled as a volunteer in a regiment of chasseurs. On the conclusion of peace (1815) he returned to Halle, and, having in 1817 taken his degree in philosophy, he in the same year became assistant head master (Conrector) in the Minden gymnasium, and in 1818 was appointed director of the gymnasium at Cleves. Here he published his earliest work (Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung u. die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien), a treatise which had considerable influence on subsequent investigations as to the origin of the gospels. In 1819 Gieseler was appointed a professor ordinarius in theology in the newly founded university of Bonn, where, besides lecturing on church history, he made important contributions to the literature of that subject in Ernst Rosenmüller’s Repertorium, K. F. Stäudlin and H. G. Tschirner’s Archiv, and in various university “programs.” The first part of the first volume of his well-known Church History appeared in 1824. In 1831 he accepted a call to Göttingen as successor to J. G. Planck. He lectured on church history, the history of dogma, and dogmatic theology. In 1837 he was appointed a Consistorialrath, and shortly afterwards was created a knight of the Guelphic order. He died on the 8th of July 1854. The fourth and fifth volumes of the Kirchengeschichte, embracing the period subsequent to 1814, were published posthumously in 1855 by E. R. Redepenning (1810-1883); and they were followed in 1856 by a Dogmengeschichte, which is sometimes reckoned as the sixth volume of the Church History. Among church historians Gieseler continues to hold a high place. Less vivid and picturesque in style than Karl Hase, conspicuously deficient in Neander’s deep and sympathetic insight into the more spiritual forces by which church life is pervaded, he excels these and all other contemporaries in the fulness and accuracy of his information. His Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, with its copious references to original authorities, is of great value to the student: “Gieseler wished that each age should speak for itself, since only by this means can the peculiarity of its ideas be fully appreciated” (Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 284). The work, which has passed through several editions in Germany, has partially appeared also in two English translations. That 4 published in New York (Text Book of Ecclesiastical History, 5 vols.) brings the work down to the peace of Westphalia, while that published in “Clark’s Theological Library” (Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, Edinburgh, 5 vols.) closes with the beginning of the Reformation. Gieseler was not only a devoted student but also an energetic man of business. He frequently held the office of pro-rector of the university, and did much useful work as a member of several of its committees.

GIESSEN, a town of Germany, capital of the province of Upper Hesse, in the grand-duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, is situated in a beautiful and fruitful valley at the confluence of the Wieseck with the Lahn, 41 m. N.N.W. of Frankfort-on-Main on the railway to Cassel; and at the junction of important lines to Cologne and Coblenz. Pop. (1885) 18,836; (1905) 29,149. In the old part of the town the streets are narrow and irregular. Besides the university, the principal buildings are the Stadtkirche, the provincial government offices, comprising a portion of the old castle dating from the 12th century, the arsenal (now barracks) and the town-hall (containing an historical collection). The university, founded in 1607 by Louis V, landgrave of Hesse, has a large and valuable library, a botanic garden, an observatory, medical schools, a museum of natural history, a chemical laboratory which was directed by Justus von Liebig, professor here from 1824 to 1852, and an agricultural college. The industries include the manufacture of woollen and cotton cloth of various kinds, machines, leather, candles, tobacco and beer.

Giessen, the name of which is probably derived from the streams which pour (giessen) their waters here into the Lahn, was formed in the 12th century out of the villages Selters, Aster and Kroppach, for whose protection Count William of Gleiberg built the castle of Giessen. Through marriage the town came, in 1203, into the possession of the count palatine, Rudolph of Tübingen, who sold it in 1265 to the landgrave Henry of Hesse. It was surrounded with fortifications in 1530, which were demolished in 1547, but rebuilt in 1560. In 1805 they were finally pulled down, and their site converted into promenades.

GIFFARD, GODFREY (c. 1235-1302); chancellor of England and bishop of Worcester, was a son of Hugh Giffard of Boyton, Wiltshire. Having entered the church he speedily obtained valuable preferments owing to the influence of his brother Walter, who became chancellor of England in 1265. In 1266 Godfrey became chancellor of the exchequer, succeeding Walter as chancellor of England when, in the same year, the latter was made archbishop of York. In 1268 he was chosen bishop of Worcester, resigning the chancellorship shortly afterwards; and both before and after 1279, when he inherited the valuable property of his brother the archbishop, he was employed on public business by Edward I. His main energies, however, were devoted to the affairs of his see. He had one long dispute with the monks of Worcester, another with the abbot of Westminster, and was vigilant in guarding his material interests. The bishop died on the 26th of January 1302, and was buried in his cathedral. Giffard, although inclined to nepotism, was a benefactor to his cathedral, and completed and fortified the episcopal castle at Hartlebury.

GIFFARD, WALTER (d. 1279), chancellor of England and archbishop of York, was a son of Hugh Giffard of Boyton, Wiltshire, and after serving as canon and archdeacon of Wells, was chosen bishop of Bath and Wells in May 1264. In August 1265 Henry III. appointed him chancellor of England, and he was one of the arbitrators who drew up the dictum de Kenilworth in 1266. Later in this year Pope Clement IV. named him archbishop of York, and having resigned the chancellorship he was an able and diligent ruler of his see, although in spite of his great wealth he was frequently in pecuniary difficulties. When Henry III. died in November 1272 the archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant, and consequently the great seal was delivered to the archbishop of York, who was the chief of the three regents who successfully governed the kingdom until the return of Edward I. in August 1274. Having again acted in this capacity during the king’s absence in 1275, Giffard died in April 1279, and was buried in his cathedral.

GIFFARD, WILLIAM (d. 1129), bishop of Winchester, was chancellor of William II. and received his see, in succession to Bishop Walkelin, from Henry I. (1100). He was one of the bishops elect whom Anselm refused to consecrate (1101) as having been nominated and invested by the lay power. During the investitures dispute Giffard was on friendly terms with Anselm, and drew upon himself a sentence of banishment through declining to accept consecration from the archbishop of York (1103). He was, however, one of the bishops who pressed Anselm, in 1106, to give way to the king. He was consecrated after the settlement of 1107. He became a close friend of Anselm, aided the first Cistercians to settle in England, and restored Winchester cathedral with great magnificence.

GIFFEN, SIR ROBERT (1837-1910), British statistician and economist, was born at Strathaven, Lanarkshire. He entered a solicitor’s office in Glasgow, and while in that city attended courses at the university. He drifted into journalism, and after working for the Stirling Journal he went to London in 1862 and joined the staff of the Globe. He also assisted Mr John (afterwards Lord) Morley, when the latter edited the Fortnightly Review. In 1868 he became Walter Bagehot’s assistant-editor on the Economist; and his services were also secured in 1873 as city-editor of the Daily News, and later of The Times. His high reputation as a financial journalist and statistician, gained in these years, led to his appointment in 1876 as head of the statistical department in the Board of Trade, and subsequently he became assistant secretary (1882) and finally controller-general (1892), retiring in 1897. In connexion with his position as chief statistical adviser to the government, he was constantly employed in drawing up reports, giving evidence before commissions of inquiry, and acting as a government auditor, besides publishing a number of important essays on financial subjects. His principal publications were Essays on Finance (1879 and 1884), The Progress of the Working Classes (1884), The Growth of Capital (1890), The Case against Bimetallism (1892), and Economic Inquiries and Studies (1904). He was president of the Statistical Society (1882-1884); and after being made a C.B. in 1891 was created K.C.B. in 1895. In 1892 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. Sir Robert Giffen continued in later years to take a leading part in all public controversies connected with finance and taxation, and his high authority and practical experience were universally recognized. He died somewhat suddenly in Scotland on the 12th of April 1910.

GIFFORD, ROBERT SWAIN (1840-1905), American marine and landscape painter, was born on Naushon Island, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of December 1840. He studied art with the Dutch marine painter Albert van Beest, who had a studio in New Bedford, and in 1864 he opened a studio for himself in Boston, subsequently settling in New York, where he was elected an associate of the National Academy of Design in 1867 and an academician in 1878. He was also a charter member of the American Water Color Society and the Society of American Artists. From 1878 until 1896 he was teacher of painting and chief master of the Woman’s Art School of Cooper Union, New York, and from 1896 until his death he was director. Gifford painted longshore views, sand dunes and landscapes generally, with charm and poetry. He was an etcher of considerable reputation, a member of the Society of American Etchers, and an honorary member of the Society of Painter-Etchers of London. He died in New York on the 13th of January 1905.

5

GIFFORD, SANDFORD ROBINSON (1823-1880), American landscape painter, was born at Greenfield, New York, on the 10th of July 1823. He studied (1842-1845) at Brown University, then went to New York, and entered the art schools of the National Academy of Design, of which organization he was elected an associate in 1851, and an academician in 1854. Subsequently he studied in Paris and Rome. He was one of the best known of the Hudson River school group, though it was at Lake George that he found most of his themes. In his day he enjoyed an enormous popularity, and his canvases are in many well-known American collections. He died in New York City on the 29th of August 1880.

GIFFORD, WILLIAM (1756-1826), English publicist and man of letters, was born at Ashburton, Devon, in April 1756. His father was a glazier of indifferent character, and before he was thirteen William had lost both parents. The business was seized by his godfather, on whom William and his brother, a child of two, became entirely dependent. For about three months William was allowed to remain at the free school of the town. He was then put to follow the plough, but after a day’s trial he proved unequal to the task, and was sent to sea with the Brixham fishermen. After a year at sea his godfather, driven by the opinion of the townsfolk, put the boy to school once more. He made rapid progress, especially in mathematics, and began to assist the master. In 1772 he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, and when he wished to pursue his mathematical studies, he was obliged to work his problems with an awl on beaten leather. By the kindness of an Ashburton surgeon, William Cooksley, a subscription was raised to enable him to return to school. Ultimately he proceeded in his twenty-third year to Oxford, where he was appointed a Bible clerk in Exeter College. Leaving the university shortly after graduation in 1782, he found a generous patron in the first Earl Grosvenor, who undertook to provide for him, and sent him on two prolonged continental tours in the capacity of tutor to his son, Lord Belgrave. Settling in London, Gifford published in 1794 his first work, a clever satirical piece, after Persius, entitled the Baviad, aimed at a coterie of second-rate writers at Florence, then popularly known as the Della Cruscans, of which Mrs Piozzi was the leader. A second satire of a similar description, the Maeviad, directed against the corruptions of the drama, appeared in 1795. About this time Gifford became acquainted with Canning, with whose help he in August 1797 originated a weekly newspaper of Conservative politics entitled the Anti-Jacobin, which, however, in the following year ceased to be published. An English version of Juvenal, on which he had been for many years engaged, appeared in 1802; to this an autobiographical notice of the translator, reproduced in Nichol’s Illustrations of Literature, was prefixed. Two years afterwards Gifford published an annotated edition of the plays of Massinger; and in 1809, when the Quarterly Review was projected, he was made editor. The success which attended the Quarterly from the outset was due in no small degree to the ability and tact with which Gifford discharged his editorial duties. He took, however, considerable liberties with the articles he inserted, and Southey, who was one of his regular contributors, said that Gifford looked on authors as Izaak Walton did on worms. His bitter opposition to Radicals and his onslaughts on new writers, conspicuous among which was the article on Keats’s Endymion, called forth Hazlitt’s Letter to W. Gifford in 1819. His connexion with the Review continued until within about two years of his death, which took place in London on the 31st of December 1826. Besides numerous contributions to the Quarterly during the last fifteen years of his life, he wrote a metrical translation of Persius, which appeared in 1821. Gifford also edited the dramas of Ben Jonson in 1816, and his edition of Ford appeared posthumously in 1827. His notes on Shirley were incorporated in Dyce’s edition in 1833. His political services were acknowledged by the appointments of commissioner of the lottery and paymaster of the gentleman pensioners. He left a considerable fortune, the bulk of which went to the son of his first benefactor, William Cooksley.

GIFT (a common Teutonic word, cf. Ger. die Gift, gift, das Gift, poison, formed from the Teut. stem gab-, to give, cf. Dutch geven, Ger. geben; in O. Eng. the word appears with initial y, the guttural of later English is due to Scandinavian influence), a general English term for a present or thing bestowed, i.e. an alienation of property otherwise than for a legal consideration, although in law it is often used to signify alienation with or without consideration. By analogy the terms “gift” and “gifted” are also used to signify the natural endowment of some special ability, or a miraculous power, in a person, as being not acquired in the ordinary way. The legal effect of a gratuitous gift only need be considered here. Formerly in English law property in land could be conveyed by one person to another by a verbal gift of the estate accompanied by delivery of possession. The Statute of Frauds required all such conveyances to be in writing, and a later statute (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106) requires them to be by deed. Personal property may be effectually transferred from one person to another by a simple verbal gift accompanied by delivery. If A delivers a chattel to B, saying or signifying that he does so by way of gift, the property passes, and the chattel belongs to B. But unless the actual thing is bodily handed over to the donee, the mere verbal expression of the donor’s desire or intention has no legal effect whatever. The persons are in the position of parties to an agreement which is void as being without consideration. When the nature of the thing is such that it cannot be bodily handed over, it will be sufficient to put the donee in such a position as to enable him to deal with it as the owner. For example, when goods are in a warehouse, the delivery of the key will make a verbal gift of them effectual; but it seems that part delivery of goods which are capable of actual delivery will not validate a verbal gift of the part undelivered. So when goods are in the possession of a warehouseman, the handing over of a delivery order might, by special custom (but not otherwise, it appears), be sufficient to pass the property in the goods, although delivery of a bill of lading for goods at sea is equivalent to an actual delivery of the goods themselves.

GIFU (Imaīzumi), a city of Japan, capital of the ken (government) of Central Nippon, which comprises the two provinces of Mino and Hida. Pop. about 41,000. It lies E. by N. of Lake Biwa, on the Central railway, on a tributary of the river Kiso, which flows to the Bay of Miya Uro. Manufactures of silk and paper goods are carried on. The ken has an area of about 4000 sq. m. and is thickly peopled, the population exceeding 1,000,000. The whole district is subject to frequent earthquakes.

GIG, apparently an onomatopoeic word for any light whirling object, and so used of a top, as in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, v. i. 70 (“Goe whip thy gigge”), or of a revolving lure made of feathers for snaring birds. The word is now chiefly used of a light two-wheeled cart or carriage for one horse, and of a narrow, light, ship’s boat for oars or sails, and also of a clinker-built rowing-boat used for rowing on the Thames. “Gig” is further applied, in mining, to a wooden chamber or box divided in the centre and used to draw miners up and down a pit or shaft, and to a textile machine, the “gig-mill” or “gigging machine,” which raises the nap on cloth by means of teazels. A “gig” or “fish-gig” (properly “fiz-gig,” possibly an adaptation of Span. fisga, harpoon) is an instrument used for spearing fish.

GIGLIO (anc. Igilium), an island of Italy, off the S.W. coast of Italy, in the province of Grosseto, 11 m. to the W. of Monte Argentario, the nearest point on the coast. It measures about 5 m. by 3 and its highest point is 1634 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 2062. It is partly composed of granite, which was quarried here by the Romans, and is still used; the island is fertile, and produces wine and fruit, the cultivation of which has taken the place of the forests of which Rutilius spoke (Itin. i. 325, “eminus Igilii silvosa cacumina miror”). Julius Caesar mentions its sailors in the fleet of Domitius Ahenobarbus. In Rutilius’s time it served as a place of refuge from the barbarian invaders. Charlemagne gave it to the abbey of Tre Fontane at Rome. In the 14th century it belonged to Pisa, then to Florence, 6 then, after being seized by the Spanish fleet, it was ceded to Antonio Piccolomini, nephew of Pius II. In 1558 it was sold to the wife of Cosimo I. of Florence.

GIJÓN, a seaport of northern Spain, in the province of Oviedo; on the Bay of Biscay, and at the terminus of railways from Avilés, Oviedo and Langreo. Pop. (1900) 47,544. The older parts of Gijón, which are partly enclosed by ancient walls, occupy the upper slopes of a peninsular headland, Santa Catalina Point; while its more modern suburbs extend along the shore to Cape Torres, on the west, and Cape San Lorenzo, on the east. These suburbs contain the town-hall, theatre, markets, and a bull-ring with seats for 12,000 spectators. Few of the buildings of Gijón are noteworthy for any architectural merit, except perhaps the 15th-century parish church of San Pedro, which has a triple raw of aisles on each side, the palace of the marquesses of Revillajigedo (or Revilla Gigedo), and the Asturian Institute or Jovellanos Institute. The last named has a very fine collection of drawings by Spanish and other artists, a good library and classes for instruction in seamanship, mathematics and languages. It was founded in 1797 by the poet and statesman Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos (1744-1811). Jovellanos, a native of Gijón, is buried in San Pedro.

The Bay of Gijón is the most important roadstead on the Spanish coast between Ferrol and Santander. Its first quay was constructed by means of a grant from Charles V. in 1552-1554; and its arsenal, added in the reign of Philip II. (1556-1598), was used in 1588 as a repairing station for the surviving ships of the Invincible Armada. A new quay was built in 1766-1768, and extended in 1859; the harbour was further improved in 1864, and after 1892, when the Musel harbour of refuge was created at the extremity of the bay. It was, however, the establishment of railway communication in 1884 which brought the town its modern prosperity, by rendering it the chief port of shipment for the products of Langreo and other mining centres in Oviedo. A rapid commercial development followed. Besides large tobacco, glass and porcelain factories, Gijón possesses iron foundries and petroleum refineries; while its minor industries include fisheries, and the manufacture of preserved foods, soap, chocolate, candles and liqueurs. In 1903 the harbour accommodated 2189 vessels of 358,375 tons. In the same year the imports, consisting chiefly of machinery, iron, wood and food-stuffs, were valued at £660,889; while the exports, comprising zinc, copper, iron and other minerals, with fish, nuts and farm produce, were valued at £100,941.

Gijón is usually identified with the Gigia of the Romans, which, however, occupied the site of the adjoining suburb of Cima de Villa. Early in the 8th century Gijón was captured and strengthened by the Moors, who used the stones of the Roman city for their fortifications, but were expelled by King Pelayo (720-737). In 844 Gijón successfully resisted a Norman raid; in 1395 it was burned down; but thenceforward it gradually rose to commercial importance.

GĪLĀN (Ghilan, Guilan), one of the three small but important Caspian provinces of Persia, lying along the south-western shore of the Caspian Sea between 48° 50′ and 50° 30′ E. with a breadth varying from 15 to 50 m. It has an area of about 5000 sq. m. and a population of about 250,000. It is separated from Russia by the little river Astara, which flows into the Caspian, and bounded W. by Azerbāïjān, S. by Kazvin and E. by Mazandaran. The greater portion of the province is a lowland region extending inland from the sea to the base of the mountains of the Elburz range and, though the Sefīd Rūd (White river), which is called Kizil Uzain in its upper course and has its principal sources in the hills of Persian Kurdistan, is the only river of any size, the province is abundantly watered by many streams and an exceptionally great rainfall (in some years 50 in.).

The vegetation is very much like that of southern Europe, but in consequence of the great humidity and the mild climate almost tropically luxuriant, and the forests from the shore of the sea up to an altitude of nearly 5000 ft. on the mountain slopes facing the sea are as dense as an Indian jungle. The prevailing types of trees are the oak, maple, hornbeam, beech, ash and elm. The box tree comes to rare perfection, but in consequence of indiscriminate cutting for export during many years, is now becoming scarce. Of fruit trees the apple, pear, plum, cherry, medlar, pomegranate, fig, quince, as well as two kinds of vine, grow wild; oranges, sweet and bitter, and other Aurantiaceae thrive well in gardens and plantations. The fauna also is well represented, but tigers which once were frequently seen are now very scarce; panther, hyena, jackal, wild boar, deer (Cervus maral) are common; pheasant, woodcock, ducks, teal, geese and various waterfowl abound; the fisheries are very productive and are leased to a Russian firm. The ordinary cattle of the province is the small humped kind, Bos indicus, and forms an article of export to Russia, the humps, smoked, being much in demand as a delicacy. Rice of a kind not much appreciated in Persia, but much esteemed in Gīlān and Russia, is largely cultivated and a quantity valued at about £120,000 was exported to Russia during 1904-1905. Tea plantations, with seeds and plants from Assam, Ceylon and the Himalayas, were started in the early part of 1900 on the slopes of the hills south of Resht at an altitude of about 1000 ft. The results were excellent and very good tea was produced in 1904 and 1905, but the Persian government gave no support and the enterprise was neglected. The olive thrives well at Rúdbár and Manjíl in the Sefíd Rúd valley and the oil extracted from it by a Provençal for some years until 1896, when he was murdered, was of very good quality and found a ready market at Baku. Since then the oil has been, as before, only used for the manufacture of soap. Tobacco from Turkish seed, cultivated since 1875, grows well, and a considerable quantity of it is exported. The most valuable produce of the province is silk. In 1866 it was valued at £743,000 and about two-thirds of it was exported. The silkworm disease appeared in 1864 and the crops decreased in consequence until 1893 when the value of the silk exported was no more than £6500. Since then there has been a steady improvement, and in 1905-1906 the value of the produce was estimated at £300,000 and that of the quantity exported at £200,000. The eggs of the silk-worms, formerly obtained from Japan, are now imported principally from Brusa by Greeks under French protection and from France.

There is only one good road in the province, that from Enzeli to Kazvin by way of Resht; in other parts communication is by narrow and frequently impassable lanes through the thick forest, or by intricate pathways through the dense undergrowth.

The province is divided into the following administrative districts: Resht (with the capital and its immediate neighbourhood), Fumen (with Tulam and Mesula, where are iron mines), Gesker, Talish (with Shandarman, Kerganrud, Asalim, Gil-Dulab, Talish-Dulab), Enzeli (the port of Resht), Sheft, Manjíl (with Rahmetabad and Amarlu), Lahijan (with Langarud, Rúdsar and Ranehkuh), Dilman and Lashtnisha. The revenue derived from taxes and customs is about £80,000. The crown lands have been much neglected and the revenue from them amounts to hardly £3000 per annum. The value of the exports and imports from and into Gīlān, much of them in transit, is close upon £2,000,000.

Gīlān was an independent khanate until 1567 when Khan Ahmed, the last of the Kargia dynasty, which had reigned 205 years, was deposed by Tahmasp I., the second Safawid shah of Persia (1524-1576). It was occupied by a Russian force in the early part of 1723; and Tahmasp III., the tenth Safawid shah (1722-1731); then without a throne and his country occupied by the Afghans, ceded it, together with Mazandaran and Astarabad, to Peter the Great by a treaty of the 12th of September of the same year. Russian troops remained in Gīlān until 1734, when they were compelled to evacuate it.

The derivation of the name Gīlān from the modern Persian word gil meaning mud (hence “land of mud”) is incorrect. It probably means “land of the Gīl,” an ancient tribe which classical writers mention as the Gelae.

GILBART, JAMES WILLIAM (1794-1863), English writer on banking, was born in London on the 21st of March 1794. From 7 1813 to 1825 he was clerk in a London bank. After a two years’ residence in Birmingham, he was appointed manager of the Kilkenny branch of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, and in 1829 he was promoted to the Waterford branch. In 1834 he became manager of the London and Westminster Bank; and he did much to develop the system of joint-stock banking. On more than one occasion he rendered valuable services to the joint-stock banks by his evidence before committees of the House of Commons; and, on the renewal of the bank charter in 1844, he procured the insertion of a clause granting to joint-stock banks the power of suing by their public officer, and also the right of accepting bills at less than six months’ date. In 1846 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. He died in London on the 8th of August 1863. The Gilbart lectures on banking at King’s College are called after him.

GILBERT, ALFRED (1854-  ), British sculptor and goldsmith, born in London, was the son of Alfred Gilbert, musician. He received his education mainly in Paris (École des Beaux-Arts, under Cavelier), and studied in Rome and Florence where the significance of the Renaissance made a lasting impression upon him and his art. He also worked in the studio of Sir J. Edgar Boehm, R.A. His first work of importance was the charming group of the “Mother and Child,” then “The Kiss of Victory,” followed by “Perseus Arming” (1883), produced directly under the influence of the Florentine masterpieces he had studied. Its success was great, and Lord Leighton forthwith commissioned “Icarus,” which was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884, along with a remarkable “Study of a Head,” and was received with general applause. Then followed “The Enchanted Chair,” which, along with many other works deemed by the artist incomplete or unworthy of his powers, was ultimately broken by the sculptor’s own hand. The next year Mr Gilbert was occupied with the Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain, in Piccadilly, London, a work of great originality and beauty, yet shorn of some of the intended effect through restrictions put upon the artist. In 1888 was produced the statue of H.M. Queen Victoria, set up at Winchester, in its main design and in the details of its ornamentation the most remarkable work of its kind produced in Great Britain, and perhaps, it may be added, in any other country in modern times. Other statues of great beauty, at once novel in treatment and fine in design, are those set up to Lord Reay in Bombay, and John Howard at Bedford (1898); the highly original pedestal of which did much to direct into a better channel what are apt to be the eccentricities of what is called the “New Art” School. The sculptor rose to the full height of his powers in his “Memorial to the Duke of Clarence,” and his fast developing fancy and imagination, which are the main characteristics of all his work, are seen in his “Memorial Candelabrum to Lord Arthur Russell” and “Memorial Font to the son of the 4th Marquess of Bath.” Gilbert’s sense of decoration is paramount in all he does, and although in addition to the work already cited he produced busts of extraordinary excellence of Cyril Flower, John R. Clayton (since broken up by the artist—the fate of much of his admirable work), G. F. Watts, Sir Henry Tate, Sir George Birdwood, Sir Richard Owen, Sir George Grove and various others, it is on his goldsmithery that the artist would rest his reputation; on his mayoral chain for Preston, the epergne for Queen Victoria, the figurines of “Victory” (a statuette designed for the orb in the hand of the Winchester statue), “St Michael” and “St George,” as well as smaller objects such as seals, keys and the like. Mr Gilbert was chosen associate of the Royal Academy in 1887, full member in 1892 (resigned 1909), and professor of sculpture (afterwards resigned) in 1900. In 1889 he won the Grand Prix at the Paris International Exhibition. He was created a member of the Victorian Order in 1897. (See Sculpture.)

GILBERT, ANN (1821-1904), American actress, was born at Rochdale, Lancashire, on the 21st of October 1821, her maiden name being Hartley. At fifteen she was a pupil at the ballet school connected with the Haymarket theatre, conducted by Paul Taglioni, and became a dancer on the stage. In 1846 she married George H. Gilbert (d. 1866), a performer in the company of which she was a member. Together they filled many engagements in English theatres, moving to America in 1849. Mrs Gilbert’s first success in a speaking part was in 1857 as Wichavenda in Brougham’s Pocahontas. In 1869 she joined Daly’s company, playing for many years wives to James Lewis’s husbands, and old women’s parts, in which she had no equal. Mrs. Gilbert held a unique position on the American stage, on account of the admiration, esteem and affection which she enjoyed both in front and behind the footlights. She died at Chicago on the 2nd of December 1904.

GILBERT, GROVE KARL (1843-  ), American geologist, was born at Rochester, N.Y., on the 6th of May 1843. In 1869 he was attached to the Geological Survey of Ohio and in 1879 he became a member of the United States Geological Survey, being engaged on parts of the Rocky Mountains, in Nevada, Utah, California and Arizona. He is distinguished for his researches on mountain-structure and on the Great Lakes, as well as on glacial phenomena, recent earth movements, and on topographic features generally. His report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains (1877), in which the volcanic structure known as a laccolite was first described; his History of the Niagara River (1890) and Lake Bonneville (1891—the first of the Monographs issued by the United States Geological Survey) are specially important. He was awarded the Wollaston medal by the Geological Society of London in 1900.

GILBERT, SIR HUMPHREY (c. 1539-1583), English soldier, navigator and pioneer colonist in America, was the second son of Otho Gilbert, of Compton, near Dartmouth, Devon, and step-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh. He was educated at Eton and Oxford; intended for the law; introduced at court by Raleigh’s aunt, Catherine Ashley, and appointed (July 1566) captain in the army of Ireland under Sir Henry Sidney. In April 1566 he had already joined with Antony Jenkinson in a petition to Elizabeth for the discovery of the North-East Passage; in November following he presented an independent petition for the “discovering of a passage by the north to go to Cataia.” In October 1569 he became governor of Munster; on the 1st of January 1570 he was knighted; in 1571 he was returned M.P. for Plymouth; in 1572 he campaigned in the Netherlands against Spain without much success; from 1573 to 1578 he lived in retirement at Limehouse, devoting himself especially to the advocacy of a North-West Passage (his famous Discourse on this subject was published in 1576). Gilbert’s arguments, widely circulated even before 1575, were apparently of weight in promoting the Frobisher enterprises of 1576-1578. On the 11th of June 1578, Sir Humphrey obtained his long-coveted charter for North-Western discovery and colonization, authorizing him, his heirs and assigns, to discover, occupy and possess such remote “heathen lands not actually possessed of any Christian prince or people, as should seem good to him or them.” Disposing not only of his patrimony but also of the estates in Kent which he had through his wife, daughter of John Aucher of Ollerden, he fitted out an expedition which left Dartmouth on the 23rd of September 1578, and returned in May 1579, having accomplished nothing. In 1579 Gilbert aided the government in Ireland; and in 1583, after many struggles—illustrated by his appeal to Walsingham on the 11th of July 1582, for the payment of moneys due to him from government, and by his agreement with the Southampton venturers—he succeeded in equipping another fleet for “Western Planting.” On the 11th of June 1583, he sailed from Plymouth with five ships and the queen’s blessing; on the 13th of July the “Ark Raleigh,” built and manned at his brother’s expense, deserted 8 the fleet; on the 30th of July he was off the north coast of Newfoundland; on the 3rd of August he arrived off the present St John’s, and selected this site as the centre of his operations; on the 5th of August he began the plantation of the first English colony in North America. Proceeding southwards with three vessels, exploring and prospecting, he lost the largest near Cape Breton (29th of August); immediately after (31st of August) he started to return to England with the “Golden Hind” and the “Squirrel,” of forty and ten tons respectively. Obstinately refusing to leave the “frigate” and sail in his “great ship,” he shared the former’s fate in a tempest off the Azores. “Monday the 9th of September,” reports Hayes, the captain of the “Hind,” “the frigate was near cast away, ... yet at that time recovered; and, giving forth signs of joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried out unto us in the ‘Hind,’ ‘We are as near to heaven by sea as by land.’.... The same Monday night, about twelve, the frigate being ahead of us in the ‘Golden Hind,’ suddenly her lights were out, ... in that moment the frigate was devoured and swallowed up of the sea.”

GILBERT, JOHN (1810-1889); American actor, whose real name was Gibbs, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on the 27th of February 1810, and made his first appearance there as Jaffier in Venice Preserved. He soon found that his true vein was in comedy, particularly in old-men parts. When in London in 1847 he was well received both by press and public, and played with Macready. He was the leading actor at Wallack’s from 1861-1888. He died on the 17th of June 1889.

GILBERT, SIR JOHN (1817-1897), English painter and illustrator, one of the eight children of George Felix Gilbert, a member of a Derbyshire family, was born at Blackheath on the 21st of July 1817. He went to school there, and even in childhood displayed an extraordinary fondness for drawing and painting. Nevertheless, his father’s lack of means compelled him to accept employment for the boy in the office of Messrs Dickson & Bell, estate agents, in Charlotte Row, London. Yielding, however, to his natural bent, his parents agreed that he should take up art in his own way, which included but little advice from others, his only teacher being Haydon’s pupil, George Lance, the fruit painter. This artist gave him brief instructions in the use of colour. In 1836 Gilbert appeared in public for the first time. This was at the gallery of the Society of British Artists, where he sent drawings, the subjects of which were characteristic, being “The Arrest of Lord Hastings,” from Shakespeare, and “Abbot Boniface,” from The Monastery of Scott. “Inez de Castro” was in the same gallery in the next year; it was the first of a long series of works in the same medium, representing similar themes, and was accompanied, from 1837, by a still greater number of works in oil which were exhibited at the British Institution. These included “Don Quixote giving advice to Sancho Panza,” 1841; “Brunette and Phillis,” from The Spectator, 1844; “The King’s Artillery at Marston Moor,” 1860; and “Don Quixote comes back for the last time to his Home and Family,” 1867. In that year the Institution was finally closed. Gilbert exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1838, beginning with the “Portrait of a Gentleman,” and continuing, except between 1851 and 1867, till his death to exhibit there many of his best and more ambitious works. These included such capital instances as “Holbein painting the Portrait of Anne Boleyn,” “Don Quixote’s first Interview with the Duke and Duchess,” 1842, “Charlemagne visiting the Schools,” 1846. “Touchstone and the Shepherd,” and “Rembrandt,” a very fine piece, were both there in 1867; and in 1873 “Naseby,” one of his finest and most picturesque designs, was also at the Royal Academy. Gilbert was elected A.R.A. 29th January 1872, and R.A. 29th June 1876. Besides these mostly large and powerful works, the artist’s true arena of display was undoubtedly the gallery of the Old Water Colour Society, to which from 1852, when he was elected an Associate exhibitor, till he died forty-five years later, he contributed not fewer than 270 drawings, most of them admirable because of the largeness of their style, massive coloration, broad chiaroscuro, and the surpassing vigour of their designs. These qualities induced the leading critics to claim for him opportunities for painting mural pictures of great historic themes as decorations of national buildings. “The Trumpeter,” “The Standard-Bearer,” “Richard II. resigning his Crown” (now at Liverpool), “The Drug Bazaar at Constantinople,” “The Merchant of Venice” and “The Turkish Water-Carrier” are but examples of that wealth of art which added to the attractions of the gallery in Pall Mall. There Gilbert was elected a full Member in 1855, and president of the Society in 1871, shortly after which he was knighted. As an illustrator of books, magazines and periodicals of every kind he was most prolific. To the success of the Illustrated London News his designs lent powerful aid, and he was eminently serviceable in illustrating the Shakespeare of Mr Howard Staunton. He died on the 6th of October 1897.

GILBERT, SIR JOSEPH HENRY (1817-1901); English chemist, was born at Hull on the 1st of August 1817. He studied chemistry first at Glasgow under Thomas Thomson; then at University College, London, in the laboratory of A. T. Thomson (1778-1849), the professor of medical jurisprudence, also attending Thomas Graham’s lectures; and finally at Giessen under Liebig. On his return to England from Germany he acted for a year or so as assistant to his old master A. T. Thomson at University College, and in 1843, after spending a short time in the study of calico dyeing and printing near Manchester, accepted the directorship of the chemical laboratory at the famous experimental station established by Sir J. B. Lawes at Rothamsted, near St Albans, for the systematic and scientific study of agriculture. This position he held for fifty-eight years, until his death on the 23rd of December 1901. The work which he carried out during that long period in collaboration with Lawes was of a most comprehensive character, involving the application of many branches of science, such as chemistry, meteorology, botany, animal and vegetable physiology, and geology; and its influence in improving the methods of practical agriculture extended all over the civilized world. Gilbert was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860, and in 1867 was awarded a royal medal jointly with Lawes. In 1880 he presided over the Chemical Section of the British Association at its meeting at Swansea, and in 1882 he was president of the London Chemical Society, of which he had been a member almost from its foundation in 1841. For six years from 1884 he filled the Sibthorpian chair of rural economy at Oxford, and he was also an honorary professor at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. He was knighted in 1893, the year in which the jubilee of the Rothamsted experiments was celebrated.

GILBERT, MARIE DOLORES ELIZA ROSANNA [“Lola Montez”] (1818-1861), dancer and adventuress, the daughter of a British army officer, was born at Limerick, Ireland, in 1818. Her father dying in India when she was seven years old, and her mother marrying again, the child was sent to Europe to be educated, subsequently joining her mother at Bath. In 1837 she made a runaway match with a Captain James of the Indian army, and accompanied him to India. In 1842 she returned to England, and shortly afterwards her husband obtained a decree nisi for divorce. She then studied dancing, making an unsuccessful first appearance at Her Majesty’s theatre, London, in 1843, billed as “Lola Montez, Spanish dancer.” Subsequently 9 she appeared with considerable success in Germany, Poland and Russia. Thence she went to Paris, and in 1847 appeared at Munich, where she became the mistress of the old king of Bavaria, Ludwig I.; she was naturalized, created comtesse de Landsfeld, and given an income of £2000 a year. She soon proved herself the real ruler of Bavaria, adopting a liberal and anti-Jesuit policy. Her political opponents proved, however, too strong for her, and in 1848 she was banished. In 1849 she came to England, and in the same year was married to George Heald, a young officer in the Guards. Her husband’s guardian instituted a prosecution for bigamy against her on the ground that her divorce from Captain James had not been made absolute, and she fled with Heald to Spain. In 1851 she appeared at the Broadway theatre, New York, and in the following year at the Walnut Street theatre, Philadelphia. In 1853 Heald was drowned at Lisbon, and in the same year she married the proprietor of a San Francisco newspaper, but did not live long with him. Subsequently she appeared in Australia, but returned, in 1857, to act in America, and to lecture on gallantry. Her health having broken down, she devoted the rest of her life to visiting the outcasts of her own sex in New York, where, stricken with paralysis, she died on the 17th of January 1861.

GILBERT, NICOLAS JOSEPH LAURENT (1751-1780), French poet, was born at Fontenay-le-Château in Lorraine in 1751. Having completed his education at the college of Dôle, he devoted himself for a time to a half-scholastic, half-literary life at Nancy, but in 1774 he found his way to the capital. As an opponent of the Encyclopaedists and a panegyrist of Louis XV., he received considerable pensions. He died in Paris on the 12th of November 1780 from the results of a fall from his horse. The satiric force of one or two of his pieces, as Mon Apologie (1778) and Le Dix-huitième Siècle (1775), would alone be sufficient to preserve his reputation, which has been further increased by modern writers, who, like Alfred de Vigny in his Stello (chaps. 7-13), considered him a victim to the spite of his philosophic opponents. His best-known verses are the Ode imitée de plusieurs psaumes, usually entitled Adieux à la vie.

GILBERT (or Gylberde), WILLIAM (1544-1603), the most distinguished man of science in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the father of electric and magnetic science, was a member of an ancient Suffolk family, long resident in Clare, and was born on the 24th of May 1544 at Colchester, where his father, Hierome Gilbert, became recorder. Educated at Colchester school, he entered St John’s College, Cambridge, in 1558, and after taking the degrees of B.A. and M.A. in due course, graduated M.D. in 1569, in which year he was elected a senior fellow of his college. Soon afterwards he left Cambridge, and after spending three years in Italy and other parts of Europe, settled in 1573 in London, where he practised as a physician with “great success and applause.” He was admitted to the College of Physicians probably about 1576, and from 1581 to 1590 was one of the censors. In 1587 he became treasurer, holding the office till 1592, and in 1589 he was one of the committee appointed to superintend the preparation of the Pharmacopoeia Londinensis which the college in that year decided to issue, but which did not actually appear till 1618. In 1597 he was again chosen treasurer, becoming at the same time consiliarius, and in 1599 he succeeded to the presidency. Two years later he was appointed physician to Queen Elizabeth, with the usual emolument of £100 a year. After this time he seems to have removed to the court, vacating his residence, Wingfield House, which was on Peter’s Hill, between Upper Thames Street and Little Knightrider Street, and close to the house of the College of Physicians. On the death of the queen in 1603 he was reappointed by her successor; but he did not long enjoy the honour, for he died, probably of the plague, on the 30th of November (10th of December, N.S.) 1603, either in London or in Colchester. He was buried in the latter town, in the chancel of Holy Trinity church, where a monument was erected to his memory. To the College of Physicians he left his books, globes, instruments and minerals, but they were destroyed in the great fire of London.

Gilbert’s principal work is his treatise on magnetism, entitled De magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure (London, 1600; later editions—Stettin, 1628, 1633; Frankfort, 1629, 1638). This work, which embodied the results of many years’ research, was distinguished by its strict adherence to the scientific method of investigation by experiment, and by the originality of its matter, containing, as it does, an account of the author’s experiments on magnets and magnetical bodies and on electrical attractions, and also his great conception that the earth is nothing but a large magnet, and that it is this which explains, not only the direction of the magnetic needle north and south, but also the variation and dipping or inclination of the needle. Gilbert’s is therefore not merely the first, but the most important, systematic contribution to the sciences of electricity and magnetism. A posthumous work of Gilbert’s was edited by his brother, also called William, from two MSS. in the possession of Sir William Boswell; its title is De mundo nostro sublunari philosophia nova (Amsterdam, 1651). He is the reputed inventor besides of two instruments to enable sailors “to find out the latitude without seeing of sun, moon or stars,” an account of which is given in Thomas Blondeville’s Theoriques of the Planets (London, 1602). He was also the first advocate of Copernican views in England, and he concluded that the fixed stars are not all at the same distance from the earth.

It is a matter of great regret for the historian of chemistry that Gilbert left nothing on that branch of science, to which he was deeply devoted, “attaining to great exactness therein.” So at least says Thomas Fuller, who in his Worthies of England prophesied truly how he would be afterwards known: “Mahomet’s tomb at Mecca,” he says, “is said strangely to hang up, attracted by some invisible loadstone; but the memory of this doctor will never fall to the ground, which his incomparable book De magnete will support to eternity.”

GILBERT, SIR WILLIAM SCHWENK (1836-  ), English playwright and humorist, son of William Gilbert (a descendant of Sir Humphrey Gilbert), was born in London on the 18th of November 1836. His father was the author of a number of novels, the best-known of which were Shirley Hall Asylum (1863) and Dr Austin’s Guests (1866). Several of these novels—which were characterized by a singular acuteness and lucidity of style, by a dry, subacid humour, by a fund of humanitarian feeling and by a considerable medical knowledge, especially in regard to the psychology of lunatics and monomaniacs—were illustrated by his son, who developed a talent for whimsical draughtsmanship. W. S. Gilbert was educated at Boulogne, at Ealing and at King’s College, graduating B.A. from the university of London in 1856. The termination of the Crimean War was fatal to his project of competing for a commission in the Royal Artillery, but he obtained a post in the education department of the privy council office (1857-1861). Disliking the routine work, he left the Civil Service, entered the Inner Temple, was called to the bar in November 1864, and joined the northern circuit. His practice was inconsiderable, and his military and legal ambitions were eventually satisfied by a captaincy in the volunteers and appointment as a magistrate for Middlesex (June 1891). In 1861 the comic journal Fun was started by H. J. Byron, and Gilbert became from the first a valued contributor. Failing to obtain an entrée to Punch, he continued sending excellent comic verse to Fun, with humorous illustrations, the work of his own pen, over the signature of “Bab.” A collection of these lyrics, in which deft craftsmanship unites a titillating satire on the deceptiveness of appearances with the irrepressible nonsense of a Lewis Carroll, was issued separately in 1869 under the title of Bab Ballads, and was followed by More Bab Ballads. The 10 two collections and Songs of a Savoyard were united in a volume issued in 1898, with many new illustrations. The best of the old cuts, such as those depicting the “Bishop of Rum-ti-Foo” and the “Discontented Sugar Broker,” were preserved intact.

While remaining a staunch supporter of Fun, Gilbert was soon immersed in other journalistic work, and his position as dramatic critic to the Illustrated Times turned his attention to the stage. He had not to wait long for an opportunity. Early in December 1866 T. W. Robertson was asked by Miss Herbert, lessee of the St James’s theatre, to find some one who could turn out a bright Christmas piece in a fortnight, and suggested Gilbert; the latter promptly produced Dulcamara, a burlesque of L’Elisire d’amore, written in ten days, rehearsed in a week, and duly performed at Christmas. He sold the piece outright for £30, a piece of rashness which he had cause to regret, for it turned out a commercial success. In 1870 he was commissioned by Buckstone to write a blank verse fairy comedy, based upon Le Palais de la vérité, the novel by Madame de Genlis. The result was The Palace of Truth, a fairy drama, poor in structure but clever in workmanship, which served the purpose of Mr and Mrs Kendal in 1870 at the Haymarket. This was followed in 1871 by Pygmalion and Galatea, another three-act “mythological comedy,” a clever and effective but artificial piece. Another fairy comedy, The Wicked World, written for Buckstone and the Kendals, was followed in March 1873 by a burlesque version, in collaboration with Gilbert à Beckett, entitled The Happy Land. Gilbert’s next dramatic ventures inclined more to the conventional pattern, combining sentiment and a cynical humour in a manner strongly reminiscent of his father’s style. Of these pieces, Sweethearts was given at the Prince of Wales’s theatre, 7th November 1874; Tom Cobb at the St James’s, 24th April 1875; Broken Hearts at the Court, 9th December 1875; Dan’l Druce (a drama in darker vein, suggested to some extent by Silas Marner) at the Haymarket, 11th September 1876; and Engaged at the Haymarket, 3rd October 1877. The first and last of these proved decidedly popular. Gretchen, a verse drama in four acts, appeared in 1879. A one-act piece, called Comedy and Tragedy, was produced at the Lyceum, 26th January, 1884. Two dramatic trifles of later date were Foggerty’s Fairy and Rozenkrantz and Guildenstern, a travesty of Hamlet, performed at the Vaudeville in June 1891. Several of these dramas were based upon short stories by Gilbert, a number of which had appeared from time to time in the Christmas numbers of various periodicals. The best of them have been collected in the volume entitled Foggerty’s Fairy, and other Stories. In the autumn of 1871 Gilbert commenced his memorable collaboration (which lasted over twenty years) with Sir Arthur Sullivan. The first two comic operas, Thespis; or The Gods grown Old (26th September 1871) and Trial by Jury (Royalty, 25th March 1875) were merely essays. Like one or two of their successors, they were, as regards plot, little more than extended “Bab Ballads.” Later (especially in the Yeomen of the Guard), much more elaboration was attempted. The next piece was produced at the Opera Comique (17th November 1877) as The Sorcerer. At the same theatre were successfully given H.M.S. Pinafore (25th May 1878), The Pirates of Penzance; or The Slave of Duty (3rd April 1880), and Patience; or Bunthorne’s Bride (23rd April 1881). In October 1881 the successful Patience was removed to a new theatre, the Savoy, specially built for the Gilbert and Sullivan operas by Richard D’Oyly Carte. Patience was followed, on 25th November 1882, by Iolanthe; or The Peer and the Peri; and then came, on 5th January 1884, Princess Ida; or Castle Adamant, a re-cast of a charming and witty fantasia which Gilbert had written some years previously, and had then described as a “respectful perversion of Mr. Tennyson’s exquisite poem.” The impulse reached its fullest development in the operas that followed next in order—The Mikado; or The Town of Titipu (14th March 1885); Ruddigore (22nd January 1887); The Yeomen of the Guard (3rd October 1888); and The Gondoliers (7th December 1889). After the appearance of The Gondoliers a coolness occurred between the composer and librettist, owing to Gilbert’s considering that Sullivan had not supported him in a business disagreement with D’Oyly Carte. But the estrangement was only temporary. Gilbert wrote several more librettos, and of these Utopia Limited (1893) and the exceptionally witty Grand Duke (1896) were written in conjunction with Sullivan. As a master of metre Gilbert had shown himself consummate, as a dealer in quips and paradoxes and ludicrous dilemmas, unrivalled. Even for the music of the operas he deserves some credit, for the rhythms were frequently his own (as in “I have a Song to Sing, O”), and the metres were in many cases invented by himself. One or two of his librettos, such as that of Patience, are virtually flawless. Enthusiasts are divided only as to the comparative merit of the operas. Princess Ida and Patience are in some respects the daintiest. There is a genuine vein of poetry in The Yeomen of the Guard. Some of the drollest songs are in Pinafore and Ruddigore. The Gondoliers shows the most charming lightness of touch, while with the general public The Mikado proved the favourite. The enduring popularity of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas was abundantly proved by later revivals. Among the birthday honours in June 1907 Gilbert was given a knighthood. In 1909 his Fallen Fairies (music by Edward German) was produced at the Savoy.

GILBERT DE LA PORRÉE, frequently known as Gilbertus Porretanus or Pictaviensis (1070-1154); scholastic logician and theologian, was born at Poitiers. He was educated under Bernard of Chartres and Anselm of Laon. After teaching for about twenty years in Chartres, he lectured on dialectics and theology in Paris (from 1137), and in 1141 returned to Poitiers, being elected bishop in the following year. His heterodox opinions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity drew upon his works the condemnation of the church. The synod of Reims in 1148 procured papal sanction for four propositions opposed to certain of Gilbert’s tenets, and his works were condemned until they should be corrected in accordance with the principles of the church. Gilbert seems to have submitted quietly to this judgment; he yielded assent to the four propositions, and remained on friendly terms with his antagonists till his death on the 4th of September 1154. Gilbert is almost the only logician of the 12th century who is quoted by the greater scholastics of the succeeding age. His chief logical work, the treatise De sex principiis, was regarded with a reverence almost equal to that paid to Aristotle, and furnished matter for numerous commentators, amongst them Albertus Magnus. Owing to the fame of this work, he is mentioned by Dante as the Magister sex principiorum. The treatise itself is a discussion of the Aristotelian categories, specially of the six subordinate modes. Gilbert distinguishes in the ten categories two classes, one essential, the other derivative. Essential or inhering (formae inhaerentes) in the objects themselves are only substance, quantity, quality and relation in the stricter sense of that term. The remaining six, when, where, action, passion, position and habit, are relative and subordinate (formae assistentes). This suggestion has some interest, but is of no great value, either in logic or in the theory of knowledge. More important in the history of scholasticism are the theological consequences to which Gilbert’s realism led him. In the commentary on the treatise De Trinitate (erroneously attributed to Boëtius) he proceeds from the metaphysical notion that pure or abstract being is prior in nature to that which is. This pure being is God, and must be distinguished from the triune God as known to us. God is incomprehensible, and the categories cannot be applied to determine his existence. In God there is no distinction or difference, whereas in all substances or things there is duality, arising from the element of matter. Between pure being and substances stand the ideas or forms, which subsist, though they are not substances. These forms, when materialized, are called formae substantiales or formae nativae; they are the essences of things, and in themselves have no relation to the accidents of things. Things are temporal, the ideas perpetual, God eternal. The pure form of existence, that by which God is God, must be distinguished from the three persons who are God by participation in this form. The form or essence is one, the persons or substances three. It was this distinction between Deitas or 11 Divinitas and Deus that led to the condemnation of Gilbert’s doctrine.

GILBERT OF SEMPRINGHAM, ST, founder of the Gilbertines, the only religious order of English origin, was born at Sempringham in Lincolnshire, c. 1083-1089. He was educated in France, and ordained in 1123, being presented by his father to the living of Sempringham. About 1135 he established there a convent for nuns; and to perform the heavy work and cultivate the fields he formed a number of labourers into a society of lay brothers attached to the convent. Similar establishments were founded elsewhere, and in 1147 Gilbert tried to get them incorporated in the Cistercian order. Failing in this, he proceeded to form communities of priests and clerics to perform the spiritual ministrations needed by the nuns. The women lived according to the Benedictine rule as interpreted by the Cistercians; the men according to the rule of St Augustine, and were canons regular. The special constitutions of the order were largely taken from those of the Premonstratensian canons and of the Cistercians. Like Fontevrault (q.v.) it was a double order, the communities of men and women living side by side; but, though the property all belonged to the nuns, the superior of the canons was the head of the whole establishment, and the general superior was a canon, called “Master of Sempringham.” The general chapter was a mixed assembly composed of two canons and two nuns from each house; the nuns had to travel to the chapter in closed carts. The office was celebrated together in the church, a high stone screen separating the two choirs of canons and nuns. The order received papal approbation in 1148. By Gilbert’s death (1189) there were nine double monasteries and four of canons only, containing about 700 canons and 1000 nuns in all. At the dissolution there were some 25 monasteries, whereof 4 ranked among the greater monasteries (see list in F. A. Gasquet’s English Monastic Life). The order never spread beyond England. The habit of the Gilbertines was black, with a white cloak.

GILBERT FOLIOT (d. 1187), bishop of Hereford, and of London, is first mentioned as a monk of Cluny, whence he was called in 1136 to plead the cause of the empress Matilda against Stephen at the Roman court. Shortly afterwards he became prior of Cluny; then prior of Abbéville, a house dependent upon Cluny. In 1139 he was elected abbot of Gloucester. The appointment was confirmed by Stephen, and from the ecclesiastical point of view was unexceptionable. But the new abbot proved himself a valuable ally of the empress, and her ablest controversialist. Gilbert’s reputation grew rapidly. He was respected at Rome; and he acted as the representative of the primate, Theobald, in the supervision of the Welsh church. In 1148, on being nominated by the pope to the see of Hereford, Gilbert with characteristic wariness sought confirmation both from Henry of Anjou and from Stephen. But he was an Angevin at heart, and after 1154 was treated by Henry II. with every mark of consideration. He was Becket’s rival for the primacy, and the only bishop who protested against the king’s choice. Becket, with rare forbearance, endeavoured to win his friendship by procuring for him the see of London (1163). But Gilbert evaded the customary profession of obedience to the primate, and apparently aspired to make his see independent of Canterbury. On the questions raised by the Constitutions of Clarendon he sided with the king, whose confessor he had now become. He urged Becket to yield, and, when this advice was rejected, encouraged his fellow-bishops to repudiate the authority of the archbishop. In the years of controversy which followed Becket’s flight the king depended much upon the bishop’s skill as a disputant and diplomatist. Gilbert was twice excommunicated by Becket, but both on these and on other occasions he showed great dexterity in detaching the pope from the cause of the exile. To him it was chiefly due that Henry avoided an open conflict with Rome of the kind which John afterwards provoked. Gilbert was one of the bishops whose excommunication in 1170 provoked the king’s knights to murder Becket; but he cannot be reproached with any share in the crime. His later years were uneventful, though he enjoyed great influence with the king and among his fellow bishops. Scholarly, dignified, ascetic in his private life, devoted to the service of the Church, he was nevertheless more respected than loved. His nature was cold; he made few friends; and the taint of a calculating ambition runs through his whole career. He died in the spring of 1187.

GILBERT (Kingsmill) ISLANDS, an extensive archipelago belonging to Great Britain in the mid-western Pacific Ocean, lying N. and S. of the equator, and between 170° and 180° E. There are sixteen islands, all coral reefs or atolls, extending in crescent form over about five degrees of latitude. The principal is Taputenea or Drummond Island. The soil, mostly of coral sand, is productive of little else than the coco-nut palm, and the chief source of food supply is the sea. The population of these islands presents a remarkable phenomenon; in spite of adverse conditions of environment and complete barbarism it is exceedingly dense, in strong contradistinction to that of many other more favoured islands. The land area of the group is only 166 m., yet the population is about 30,000. The Gilbert islanders are a dark and coarse type of the Polynesian race, and show signs of much crossing. They are tall and stout, with an average height of 5 ft. 8 in., and are of a vigorous, energetic temperament. They are nearly always naked, but wear a conical hat of pandanus leaf. In war they have an armour of plaited coco-nut fibres. They are fierce fighters, their chief weapon being a sword armed with sharks’ teeth. Their canoes are well made of coco-nut wood boards sewn neatly together and fastened on frames. British and American missionary work has been prosecuted with some success. The large population led to the introduction of natives from these islands into Hawaii as labourers in 1878-1884, but they were not found satisfactory. The islands were discovered by John Byron in 1765 (one of them bearing his name); Captains Gilbert and Marshall visited them in 1788; and they were annexed by Great Britain in 1892.

GILBEY, SIR WALTER, 1st Bart. (1831-  ), English wine-merchant, was born at Bishop Stortford, Hertfordshire, in 1831. His father, the owner and frequently the driver of the daily coach between Bishop Stortford and London, died when he was eleven years old, and young Gilbey was shortly afterwards placed in the office of an estate agent at Tring, subsequently obtaining a clerkship in a firm of parliamentary agents in London. On the outbreak of the Crimean War, Walter Gilbey and his younger brother, Alfred, volunteered for civilian service at the front, and were employed at a convalescent hospital on the Dardanelles. Returning to London on the declaration of peace, Walter and Alfred Gilbey, on the advice of their eldest brother, Henry Gilbey, a wholesale wine-merchant, started in the retail wine and spirit trade. The heavy duty then levied by the British government on French, Portuguese and Spanish wines was prohibitive of a sale among the English middle classes, and especially lower middle classes, whose usual alcoholic beverage was accordingly beer. Henry Gilbey was of opinion that these classes would gladly drink wine if they could get it at a moderate price, and by his advice Walter and Alfred determined to push the sales of colonial, and particularly of Cape, wines, on which 12 the duty was comparatively light. Backed by capital obtained through Henry Gilbey, they accordingly opened in 1857 a small retail business in a basement in Oxford Street, London. The Cape wines proved popular, and within three years the brothers had 20,000 customers on their books. The creation of the off-licence system by Mr Gladstone, then chancellor of the exchequer, in 1860, followed by the large reduction in the duty on French wines effected by the commercial treaty between England and France in 1861, revolutionized their trade and laid the foundation of their fortunes. Three provincial grocers, who had been granted the new off-licence, applied to be appointed the Gilbeys’ agents in their respective districts, and many similar applications followed. These were granted, and before very long a leading local grocer was acting as the firm’s agents in every district in England. The grocer who dealt in the Gilbeys’ wines and spirits was not allowed to sell those of any other firm, and the Gilbeys in return handed over to him all their existing customers in his district. This arrangement was of mutual advantage, and the Gilbeys’ business increased so rapidly that in 1864 Henry Gilbey abandoned his own undertaking to join his brothers. In 1867 the three brothers secured the old Pantheon theatre and concert hall in Oxford Street for their headquarters. In 1875 the firm purchased a large claret-producing estate in Médôc, on the banks of the Gironde, and became also the proprietors of two large whisky-distilleries in Scotland. In 1893 the business was converted, for family reasons, into a private limited liability company, of which Walter Gilbey, who in the same year was created a baronet, was chairman. Sir Walter Gilbey also became well known as a breeder of shire horses, and he did much to improve the breed of English horses (other than race-horses) generally, and wrote extensively on the subject. He became president of the Shire Horse Society, of the Hackney Horse Society, and of the Hunters’ Improvement Society, and he was the founder and chairman of the London Cart Horse Parade Society. He was also a practical agriculturist, and president of the Royal Agricultural Society.

GILDAS, or Gildus (c. 516-570), the earliest of British historians (see Celt: Literature, “Welsh”), surnamed by some Sapiens, and by others Badonicus, seems to have been born in the year 516. Regarding him little certain is known, beyond some isolated particulars that may be gathered from hints dropped in the course of his work. Two short treatises exist, purporting to be lives of Gildas, and ascribed respectively to the 11th and 12th centuries; but the writers of both are believed to have confounded two, if not more, persons that had borne the name. It is from an incidental remark of his own, namely, that the year of the siege of Mount Badon—one of the battles fought between the Saxons and the Britons—was also the year of his own nativity, that the date of his birth has been derived; the place, however, is not mentioned. His assertion that he was moved to undertake his task mainly by “zeal for God’s house and for His holy law,” and the very free use he has made of quotations from the Bible, leave scarcely a doubt that he was an ecclesiastic of some order or other. In addition, we learn that he went abroad, probably to France, in his thirty-fourth year, where, after 10 years of hesitation and preparation, he composed, about 560, the work bearing his name. His materials, he tells us, were collected from foreign rather than native sources, the latter of which had been put beyond his reach by circumstances. The Cambrian Annals give 570 as the year of his death.

The writings of Gildas have come down to us under the title of Gildae Sapientis de excidio Britanniae liber querulus. Though at first written consecutively, the work is now usually divided into three portions,—a preface, the history proper, and an epistle,—the last, which is largely made up of passages and texts of Scripture brought together for the purpose of condemning the vices of his countrymen and their rulers, being the least important, though by far the longest of the three. In the second he passes in brief review the history of Britain from its invasion by the Romans till his own times. Among other matters reference is made to the introduction of Christianity in the reign of Tiberius; the persecution under Diocletian; the spread of the Arian heresy; the election of Maximus as emperor by the legions in Britain, and his subsequent death at Aquileia; the incursions of the Picts and Scots into the southern part of the island; the temporary assistance rendered to the harassed Britons by the Romans; the final abandonment of the island by the latter; the coming of the Saxons and their reception by Guortigern (Vortigern); and, finally, the conflicts between the Britons, led by a noble Roman, Ambrosius Aurelianus, and the new invaders. Unfortunately, on almost every point on which he touches, the statements of Gildas are vague and obscure. With one exception already alluded to, no dates are given, and events are not always taken up in the order of their occurrence. These faults are of less importance during the period when Greek and Roman writers notice the affairs of Britain; but they become more serious when, as is the case from nearly the beginning of the 5th century to the date of his death, Gildas’s brief narrative is our only authority for most of what passes current as the history of our island during those years. Thus it is on his sole, though in this instance perhaps trustworthy, testimony that the famous letter rests, said to have been sent to Rome in 446 by the despairing Britons, commencing:—“To Agitius (Aetius), consul for the third time, the groans of the Britons.”

GILDER, RICHARD WATSON (1844-1909), American editor and poet, was born in Bordentown, New Jersey, on the 8th of February 1844, a brother of William Henry Gilder (1838-1900), the Arctic explorer. He was educated at Bellevue Seminary, an institution conducted by his father, the Rev. William Henry Gilder (1812-1864), in Flushing, Long Island. After three years (1865-1868) on the Newark, New Jersey, Daily Advertiser, he founded, with Newton Crane, the Newark Morning Register. In 1869 he became editor of Hours at Home, and in 1870 assistant editor of Scribner’s Monthly (eleven years later re-named The Century Magazine), of which he became editor in 1881. He was one of the founders of the Free Art League, of the International Copyright League, and of the Authors’ Club; was chairman of the New York Tenement House Commission in 1894; and was a prominent member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters, of the Council of the National Civil Service Reform League, and of the executive committee of the Citizens’ Union of New York City. His poems, which are essentially lyrical, have been collected in various volumes, including Five Books of Song (1894), In Palestine and other Poems (1898), Poems and Inscriptions (1901), and In the Heights (1905). A complete edition of his poems was published in 1908. He also edited ”Sonnets from the Portuguese” and other Poems by Elizabeth Barrett Browning; ”One Word More” and other Poems by Robert Browning (1905). He died in New York on the 18th of November 1909. His wife, Helena de Kay, a grand-daughter of Joseph Rodman Drake, assisted, with Saint Gaudens and others, in founding the Society of American Artists, now merged in the National Academy, and the Art Students’ League of New York. She translated Sensier’s biography of Millet, and painted, before her marriage in 1874, studies in flowers and ideal heads, much admired for their feeling and delicate colouring.

GILDERSLEEVE, BASIL LANNEAU (1831-  ), American classical scholar, was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on the 23rd of October 1831, son of Benjamin Gildersleeve (1791-1875), a Presbyterian evangelist, and editor of the Charleston Christian Observer in 1826-1845, of the Richmond (Va.) Watchman and 13 Observer in 1845-1856, and of The Central Presbyterian in 1856-1860. The son graduated at Princeton in 1849, studied under Franz in Berlin, under Friedrich Ritschl at Bonn and under Schneidewin at Göttingen, where he received his doctor’s degree in 1853. From 1856 to 1876 he was professor of Greek in the University of Virginia, holding the chair of Latin also in 1861-1866; and in 1876 he became professor of Greek in the newly founded Johns Hopkins University. In 1880 The American Journal of Philology, a quarterly published by the Johns Hopkins University, was established under his editorial charge, and his strong personality was expressed in the department of the Journal headed “Brief Report” or “Lanx Satura,” and in the earliest years of its publication every petty detail was in his hands. His style in it, as elsewhere, is in striking contrast to that of the typical classical scholar, and accords with his conviction that the true aim of scholarship is “that which is.” He published a Latin Grammar (1867; revised with the co-operation of Gonzalez B. Lodge, 1894 and 1899) and a Latin Series for use in secondary schools (1875), both marked by lucidity of order and mastery of grammatical theory and methods. His edition of Persius (1875) is of great value. But his bent was rather toward Greek than Latin. His special interest in Christian Greek was partly the cause of his editing in 1877 The Apologies of Justin Martyr, “which” (to use his own words) “I used unblushingly as a repository for my syntactical formulae.” Gildersleeve’s studies under Franz had no doubt quickened his interest in Greek syntax, and his logic, untrammelled by previous categories, and his marvellous sympathy with the language were displayed in this most unlikely of places. His Syntax of Classic Greek (Part I., 1900, with C. W. E. Miller) collects these formulae. Gildersleeve edited in 1885 The Olympian and Pythian Odes of Pindar, with a brilliant and valuable introduction. His views on the function of grammar were summarized in a paper on The Spiritual Rights of Minute Research delivered at Bryn Mawr on the 16th of June 1895. His collected contributions to literary periodicals appeared in 1890 under the title Essays and Studies Educational and Literary.

GILDING, the art of spreading gold, either by mechanical or by chemical means, over the surface of a body for the purpose of ornament. The art of gilding was known to the ancients. According to Herodotus, the Egyptians were accustomed to gild wood and metals; and gilding by means of gold plates is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. Pliny informs us that the first gilding seen at Rome was after the destruction of Carthage, under the censorship of Lucius Mummius, when the Romans began to gild the ceilings of their temples and palaces, the Capitol being the first place on which this enrichment was bestowed. But he adds that luxury advanced on them so rapidly that in a little time you might see all, even private and poor persons, gild the walls, vaults, and other parts of their dwellings. Owing to the comparative thickness of the gold-leaf used in ancient gilding, the traces of it which yet remain are remarkably brilliant and solid. Gilding has in all times occupied an important place in the ornamental arts of Oriental countries; and the native processes pursued in India at the present day may be taken as typical of the arts as practised from the earliest periods. For the gilding of copper, employed in the decoration of temple domes and other large works, the following is an outline of the processes employed. The metal surface is thoroughly scraped, cleaned and polished, and next heated in a fire sufficiently to remove any traces of grease or other impurity which may remain from the operation of polishing. It is then dipped in an acid solution prepared from dried unripe apricots, and rubbed with pumice or brick powder. Next, the surface is rubbed over with mercury which forms a superficial amalgam with the copper, after which it is left some hours in clean water, again washed with the acid solution, and dried. It is now ready for receiving the gold, which is laid on in leaf, and, on adhering, assumes a grey appearance from combining with the mercury, but on the application of heat the latter metal volatilizes, leaving the gold a dull greyish hue. The colour is brought up by means of rubbing with agate burnishers. The weight of mercury used in this process is double that of the gold laid on, and the thickness of the gilding is regulated by the circumstances or necessities of the case. For the gilding of iron or steel, the surface is first scratched over with chequered lines, then washed in a hot solution of green apricots, dried and heated just short of red-heat. The gold-leaf is then laid on, and rubbed in with agate burnishers, when it adheres by catching into the prepared scratched surface.

Modern gilding is applied to numerous and diverse surfaces and by various distinct processes, so that the art is prosecuted in many ways, and is part of widely different ornamental and useful arts. It forms an important and essential part of frame-making (see Carving and Gilding); it is largely employed in connexion with cabinet-work, decorative painting and house ornamentation; and it also bulks largely in bookbinding and ornamental leather work. Further, gilding is much employed for coating baser metals, as in button-making, in the gilt toy trade, in electro-gilt reproductions and in electro-plating; and it is also a characteristic feature in the decoration of pottery, porcelain and glass. The various processes fall under one or other of two heads—mechanical gilding and gilding by chemical agency.

Gilding of Pottery and Porcelain.—The quantity of gold consumed for these purposes is very large. The gold used is dissolved in aqua-regia, and the acid is driven off by heat, or the gold may be precipitated by means of sulphate of iron. In this pulverulent state the gold is mixed with 1⁄12th of its weight of oxide of bismuth, together with a small quantity of borax and gum water. The mixture is applied to the articles with a camel’s hair pencil, and after passing through the fire the gold is of a dingy colour, but the lustre is brought out by burnishing with agate and bloodstone, and afterwards cleaning with vinegar or white-lead.

GILDS, or Guilds. Medieval gilds were voluntary associations formed for the mutual aid and protection of their members. Among the gildsmen there was a strong spirit of fraternal co-operation or Christian brotherhood, with a mixture of worldly and religious ideals—the support of the body and the salvation of the soul. Early meanings of the root gild or geld were expiation, penalty, sacrifice or worship, feast or banquet, and contribution or payment; it is difficult to determine which is the earliest meaning, and we are not certain whether the gildsmen were originally those who contributed to a common fund or those who worshipped or feasted together. Their fraternities or societies may be divided into three classes: religious or benevolent, merchant and craft gilds. The last two categories, which do not become prominent anywhere in Europe until the 12th century, had, like all gilds, a religious tinge, but their aims were primarily worldly, and their functions were mainly of an economic character.

1. Origin.—Various theories have been advanced concerning the origin of gilds. Some writers regard them as a continuation of the Roman collegia and sodalitates, but there is little evidence to prove the unbroken continuity of existence of the Roman and Germanic fraternities. A more widely accepted theory derives gilds wholly or in part from the early Germanic or Scandinavian sacrificial banquets. Much influence is ascribed to this heathen element by Lujo Brentano, Karl Hegel, W. E. Wilda and other writers. This view does not seem to be tenable, for the old sacrificial carousals lack two of the essential elements of the gilds, namely corporative solidarity or permanent association and the spirit of Christian brotherhood. Dr Max Pappenheim has ascribed the origin of Germanic gilds to the northern “foster-brotherhood” or “sworn-brotherhood,” which was an artificial bond of union between two or more persons. After intermingling their blood in the earth and performing other peculiar ceremonies, the two contracting parties with grasped hands swore to avenge any injury done to either of them. The objections to this theory are fully stated by Hegel (Städte und Gilden, i. 250-253). The foster-brotherhood seems to have been unknown to the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, the nations in which medieval gilds first appear; and hence Dr Pappenheim’s conclusions, if tenable at all, apply only to Denmark or Scandinavia.

No theory on this subject can be satisfactory which wholly ignores the influence of the Christian church. Imbued with the idea of the brotherhood of man, the church naturally fostered the early growth of gilds and tried to make them displace the old heathen banquets. The work of the church was, however, directive rather than creative. Gilds were a natural manifestation of the associative spirit which is inherent in mankind. The same needs produce in different ages associations which have striking resemblances, but those of each age have peculiarities which indicate a spontaneous growth. It is not necessary to seek the germ of gilds in any antecedent age or institution. When the old kin-bond or maegth was beginning to weaken or dissolve, and the state did not yet afford adequate protection to its citizens, individuals naturally united for mutual help.

Gilds are first mentioned in the Carolingian capitularies of 779 and 789, and in the enactments made by the synod of Nantes early in the 9th century, the text of which has been preserved in the ecclesiastical ordinances of Hincmar of Rheims (A.D. 852). The capitularies of 805 and 821 also contain vague references to sworn unions of some sort, and a capitulary of 884 prohibits villeins from forming associations “vulgarly called gilds” against those who have despoiled them. The Carolingians evidently regarded such “conjurations” as “conspirations” dangerous to the state. The gilds of Norway, Denmark and Sweden are first mentioned in the 11th, 12th and 14th centuries respectively; those of France and the Netherlands in the 11th.

Many writers believe that the earliest references to gilds come from England. The laws of Ine speak of gegildan who help each other pay the wergeld, but it is not entirely certain that they were members of gild fraternities in the later sense. These are more clearly referred to in England in the second half of the 9th century, though we have little information concerning them before the 11th century. To the first half of that century belong the statutes of the fraternities of Cambridge, Abbotsbury and Exeter. They are important because they form the oldest body of gild ordinances extant in Europe. The thanes’ gild at Cambridge afforded help in blood-feuds, and provided for the payment of the wergeld in case a member killed any one. The religious element was more prominent in Orcy’s gild at Abbotsbury and in the fraternity at Exeter; their ordinances exhibit much solicitude for the salvation of the brethren’s souls. The Exeter gild also gave assistance when property was destroyed by fire. Prayers for the dead, attendance at funerals of gildsmen, periodical banquets, the solemn entrance oath, fines for neglect of duty and for improper conduct, contributions to a common purse, mutual assistance in distress, periodical meetings in the gildhall,—in short, all the characteristic features of the later gilds already appear in the statutes of these Anglo-Saxon fraternities. Some continental writers, in dealing with the origin of municipal government throughout western Europe, have, however, ascribed too much importance to the Anglo-Saxon gilds, exaggerating their prevalence and contending that they form the germ of medieval municipal government. This view rests almost entirely on conjecture; there is no good evidence to show that there was any organic connexion between gilds and municipal government in England before the coming of the Normans. It should also be noted that there is no trace of the existence of either craft or merchant gilds in England before the Norman Conquest. Commerce and industry were not yet sufficiently developed to call for the creation of such associations.

2. Religious Gilds after the Norman Conquest.—Though we have not much information concerning the religious gilds in the 12th century, they doubtless flourished under the Anglo-Norman kings, and we know that they were numerous, especially in the boroughs, from the 13th century onward. In 1388 parliament ordered that every sheriff in England should call upon the masters and wardens of all gilds and brotherhoods to send to the king’s council in Chancery, before the 2nd of February 1389, full returns regarding their foundation, ordinances and property. Many of these returns were edited by J. Toulmin Smith (1816-1869), and they throw much light on the functions of the gilds. Their ordinances are similar to those of the above-mentioned Anglo-Saxon fraternities. Each member took an oath of admission, paid an entrance-fee, and made a small annual contribution to the common fund. The brethren were aided in old age, sickness and poverty, often also in cases of loss by robbery, shipwreck and conflagration; for example, any member of the gild of St Catherine, Aldersgate, was to be assisted if he “fall into poverty or be injured through age, or through fire or water, thieves or sickness.” Alms were often 15 given even to non-gildsmen; lights were supported at certain altars; feasts and processions were held periodically; the funerals of brethren were attended; and masses for the dead were provided from the common purse or from special contributions made by the gildsmen. Some of the religious gilds supported schools, or helped to maintain roads, bridges and town-walls, or even came, in course of time, to be closely connected with the government of the borough; but, as a rule, they were simply private societies with a limited sphere of activity. They are important because they played a prominent rôle in the social life of England, especially as eleemosynary institutions, down to the time of their suppression in 1547. Religious gilds, closely resembling those of England, also flourished on the continent during the middle ages.

3. The Gild Merchant.—The merchant and craft fraternities are particularly interesting to students of economic and municipal history. The gild merchant came into existence in England soon after the Norman Conquest, as a result of the increasing importance of trade, and it may have been transplanted from Normandy. Until clearer evidence of foreign influence is found, it may, however, be safer to regard it simply as a new application of the old gild principle, though this new application may have been stimulated by continental example. The evidence seems to indicate the pre-existence of the gild merchant in Normandy, but it is not mentioned anywhere on the continent before the 11th century. It spread rapidly in England, and from the reign of John onward we have evidence of its existence in many English boroughs. But in some prominent towns, notably London, Colchester, Norwich and the Cinque Ports, it seems never to have been adopted. In fact it played a more conspicuous rôle in the small boroughs than in the large ones. It was regarded by the townsmen as one of their most important privileges. Its chief function was to regulate the trade monopoly conveyed to the borough by the royal grant of gilda mercatoria. A grant of this sort implied that the gildsmen had the right to trade freely in the town, and to impose payments and restrictions upon others who desired to exercise that privilege. The ordinances of a gild merchant thus aim to protect the brethren from the commercial competition of strangers or non-gildsmen. More freedom of trade was allowed at all times in the selling of wares by wholesale, and also in retail dealings during the time of markets and fairs. The ordinances were enforced by an alderman with the assistance of two or more deputies, or by one or two masters, wardens or keepers. The Morwenspeches were periodical meetings at which the brethren feasted, revised their ordinances, admitted new members, elected officers and transacted other business.

It has often been asserted that the gild merchant and the borough were identical, and that the former was the basis of the whole municipal constitution. But recent research has discredited this theory both in England and on the continent. Much evidence has been produced to show that gild and borough, gildsmen and burgesses, were originally distinct conceptions, and that they continued to be discriminated in most towns throughout the middle ages. Admission to the gild was not restricted to burgesses; nor did the brethren form an aristocratic body having control over the whole municipal polity. No good evidence has, moreover, been advanced to prove that this or any other kind of gild was the germ of the municipal constitution. On the other hand, the gild merchant was certainly an official organ or department of the borough administration, and it exerted considerable influence upon the economic and corporative growth of the English municipalities.

Historians have expressed divergent views regarding the early relations of the craftsmen and their fraternities to the gild merchant. One of the main questions in dispute is whether artisans were excluded from the gild merchant. Many of them seem to have been admitted to membership. They were regarded as merchants, for they bought raw material and sold the manufactured commodity; no sharp line of demarcation was drawn between the two classes in the 12th and 13th centuries. Separate societies of craftsmen were formed in England soon after the gild merchant came into existence; but at first they were few in number. The gild merchant did not give birth to craft fraternities or have anything to do with their origin; nor did it delegate its authority to them. In fact, there seems to have been little or no organic connexion between the two classes of gilds. As has already been intimated, however, many artisans probably belonged both to their own craft fraternity and to the gild merchant, and the latter, owing to its great power in the town, may have exercised some sort of supervision over the craftsmen and their societies. When the king bestowed upon the tanners or weavers or any other body of artisans the right to have a gild, they secured the monopoly of working and trading in their branch of industry. Thus with every creation of a craft fraternity the gild merchant was weakened and its sphere of activity was diminished, though the new bodies were subsidiary to the older and larger fraternity. The greater the commercial and industrial prosperity of a town, the more rapid was the multiplication of craft gilds, which was a natural result of the ever-increasing division of labour. The old gild merchant remained longest intact and powerful in the smaller boroughs, in which, owing to the predominance of agriculture, few or no craft gilds were formed. In some of the larger towns the crafts were prominent already in the 13th century, but they became much more prominent in the first half of the 14th century. Their increase in number and power was particularly rapid in the time of Edward III., whose reign marks an era of industrial progress. Many master craftsmen now became wealthy employers of labour, dealing extensively in the wares which they produced. The class of dealers or merchants, as distinguished from trading artisans, also greatly increased and established separate fraternities. When these various unions of dealers and of craftsmen embraced all the trades and branches of production in the town, little or no vitality remained in the old gild merchant; it ceased to have an independent sphere of activity. The tendency was for the single organization, with a general monopoly of trade, to be replaced by a number of separate organizations representing the various trades and handicrafts. In short, the function of guarding and supervising the trade monopoly split up into various fragments, the aggregate of the crafts superseding the old general gild merchant. This transference of the authority of the latter to a number of distinct bodies and the consequent disintegration of the old organization was a gradual spontaneous movement,—a process of slow displacement, or natural growth and decay, due to the play of economic forces,—which, generally speaking, may be assigned to the 14th and 15th centuries, the very period in which the craft gilds attained the zenith of their power. While in most towns the name and the old organization of the gild merchant thus disappeared and the institution was displaced by the aggregate of the crafts towards the close of the middle ages, in some places it survived long after the 15th century either as a religious fraternity, shorn of its old functions, or as a periodical feast, or as a vague term applied to the whole municipal corporation.

On the continent of Europe the medieval gild merchant played a less important rôle than in England. In Germany, France and the Netherlands it occupies a less prominent place in the town charters and in the municipal polity, and often corresponds to the later fraternities of English dealers established either to carry on foreign commerce or to regulate a particular part of the local trade monopoly.

4. Craft Gilds.—A craft gild usually comprised all the artisans in a single branch of industry in a particular town. Such a fraternity was commonly called a “mistery” or “company” in the 15th and 16th centuries, though the old term “gild” was not yet obsolete. “Gild” was also a common designation in north Germany, while the corresponding term in south Germany was Zunft, and in France métier. These societies are not clearly visible in England or on the continent before the early part of the 12th century. With the expansion of trade and industry the number of artisans increased, and they banded together for mutual protection. Some German writers have maintained that these craft organizations emanated from 16 manorial groups of workmen, but strong arguments have been advanced against the validity of this theory (notably by F. Keutgen). It is unnecessary to elaborate any profound theory regarding the origin of the craft gilds. The union of men of the same occupation was a natural tendency of the age. In the 13th century the trade of England continued to expand and the number of craft gilds increased. In the 14th century they were fully developed and in a flourishing condition; by that time each branch of industry in every large town had its gild. The development of these societies was even more rapid on the continent than in England.

Their organization and aims were in general the same throughout western Europe. Officers, commonly called wardens in England, were elected by the members, and their chief function was to supervise the quality of the wares produced, so as to secure good and honest workmanship. Therefore, ordinances were made regulating the hours of labour and the terms of admission to the gild, including apprenticeship. Other ordinances required members to make periodical payments to a common fund, and to participate in certain common religious observances, festivities and pageants. But the regulation of industry was always paramount to social and religious aims; the chief object of the craft gild was to supervise the processes of manufacture and to control the monopoly of working and dealing in a particular branch of industry.

We have already called attention to the gradual displacement of the gild merchant by the craft organizations. The relations of the former to the latter must now be considered more in detail. There was at no time a general struggle in England between the gild merchant and the craft gilds, though in a few towns there seems to have been some friction between merchants and artisans. There is no exact parallel in England to the conflict between these two classes in Scotland in the 16th century, or to the great continental revolution of the 13th and 14th centuries, by which the crafts threw off the yoke of patrician government and secured more independence in the management of their own affairs and more participation in the civic administration. The main causes of these conflicts on the continent were the monopoly of power by the patricians, acts of violence committed by them, their bad management of the finances and their partisan administration of justice. In some towns the victory of the artisans in the 14th century was so complete that the whole civic constitution was remodelled with the craft fraternities as a basis. A widespread movement of this sort would scarcely be found in England, where trade and industry were less developed than on the continent, and where the motives of a class conflict between merchants and craftsmen were less potent. Moreover, borough government in England seems to have been mainly democratic until the 14th or 15th century; there was no oligarchy to be depressed or suppressed. Even if there had been motives for uprisings of artisans such as took place in Germany and the Netherlands, the English kings would probably have intervened. True, there were popular uprisings in England, but they were usually conflicts between the poor and the rich; the crafts as such seldom took part in these tumults. While many continental municipalities were becoming more democratic in the 14th century, those of England were drifting towards oligarchy, towards government by a close “select body.” As a rule the craft gilds secured no dominant influence in the boroughs of England, but remained subordinate to the town government. Whatever power they did secure, whether as potent subsidiary organs of the municipal polity for the regulation of trade, or as the chief or sole medium for the acquisition of citizenship, or as integral parts of the common council, was, generally speaking, the logical sequence of a gradual economic development, and not the outgrowth of a revolutionary movement by which oppressed craftsmen endeavoured to throw off the yoke of an arrogant patrician gild merchant.

Two new kinds of craft fraternities appear in the 14th century and become more prominent In the 15th, namely, the merchants’ and the journeymen’s companies. The misteries or companies of merchants traded in one or more kinds of wares. They were pre-eminently dealers, who sold what others produced. Hence they should not be confused with the old gild merchant, which originally comprised both merchants and artisans, and had the whole monopoly of the trade of the town. In most cases, the company of merchants was merely one of the craft organizations which superseded the gild merchant.

In the 14th century the journeymen or yeomen began to set up fraternities in defence of their rights. The formation of these societies marks a cleft within the ranks of some particular class of artisans—a conflict between employers, or master artisans, and workmen. The journeymen combined to protect their special interests, notably as regards hours of work and rates of wages, and they fought with the masters over the labour question in all its aspects. The resulting struggle of organized bodies of masters and journeymen was widespread throughout western Europe, but it was more prominent in Germany than in France or England. This conflict was indeed one of the main features of German industrial life in the 15th century. In England the fraternities of journeymen, after struggling a while for complete independence, seem to have fallen under the supervision and control of the masters’ gilds; in other words, they became subsidiary or affiliated organs of the older craft fraternities.

An interesting phenomenon in connexion with the organization of crafts is their tendency to amalgamate, which is occasionally visible in England in the 15th century, and more frequently in the 16th and 17th. A similar tendency is visible in the Netherlands and in some other parts of the continent already in the 14th century. Several fraternities—old gilds or new companies, with their respective cognate or heterogeneous branches of industry and trade—were fused into one body. In some towns all the crafts were thus consolidated into a single fraternity; in this case a body was reproduced which regulated the whole trade monopoly of the borough, and hence bore some resemblance to the old gild merchant.

In dealing briefly with the modern history of craft gilds, we may confine our attention to England. In the Tudor period the policy of the crown was to bring them under public or national control. Laws were passed, for example in 1503, requiring that new ordinances of “fellowships of crafts or misteries” should be approved by the royal justices or by other crown officers; and the authority of the companies to fix the price of wares was thus restricted. The statute of 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, also curtailed their jurisdiction over journeymen and apprentices (see Apprenticeship).

The craft fraternities were not suppressed by the statute of 1547 (1 Edward VI.). They were indeed expressly exempted from its general operation. Such portions of their revenues as were devoted to definite religious observances were, however, appropriated by the crown. The revenues confiscated were those used for “the finding, maintaining or sustentation of any priest or of any anniversary, or obit, lamp, light or other such things.” This has been aptly called “the disendowment of the religion of the misteries.” Edward VI.’s statute marks no break of continuity in the life of the craft organizations. Even before the Reformation, however, signs of decay had already begun to appear, and these multiplied in the 16th and 17th centuries. The old gild system was breaking down under the action of new economic forces. Its dissolution was due especially to the introduction of new industries, organized on a more modern basis, and to the extension of the domestic system of manufacture. Thus the companies gradually lost control over the regulation of industry, though they still retained their old monopoly in the 17th century, and in many cases even in the 18th. In fact, many craft fraternities still survived in the second half of the 18th century, but their usefulness had disappeared. The medieval form of association was incompatible with the new ideas of individual liberty and free competition, with the greater separation of capital and industry, employers and workmen, and with the introduction of the factory system. Intent only on promoting their own interests and disregarding the welfare of the community, the old companies had become an unmitigated evil. Attempts have been made to find in them the progenitors of the trades 17 unions, but there seems to be no immediate connexion between the latter and the craft gilds. The privileges of the old fraternities were not formally abolished until 1835; and the substantial remains or spectral forms of some are still visible in other towns besides London.

GILEAD (i.e. “hard” or “rugged,” a name sometimes used, both in earlier and in later writers, to denote the whole of the territory occupied by the Israelites eastward of Jordan, extending from the Arnon to the southern base of Hermon (Deut. xxxiv. 1; Judg. xx. 1; Jos. Ant. xii. 8. 3, 4). More precisely, however, it was the usual name of that picturesque hill country which is bounded on the N. by the Hieromax (Yarmuk), on the W. by the Jordan, on the S. by the Arnon, and on the E. by a line which may be said to follow the meridian of Ammān (Philadelphia or Rabbath-Ammon). It thus lies wholly within 31° 25′ and 32° 42′ N. lat. and 35° 34′ and 36° E. long., and is cut in two by the Jabbok. Excluding the narrow strip of low-lying plain along the Jordan, it has an average elevation of 2500 ft. above the Mediterranean; but, as seen from the west, the relative height is very much increased by the depression of the Jordan valley. The range from the same point of view presents a singularly uniform outline, having the appearance of an unbroken wall; in reality, however, it is traversed by a number of deep ravines (wadis), of which the most important are the Yābis, the Ajlūn, the Rājib, the Zerka (Jabbok), the Hesban, and the Zerka Ma’īn. The great mass of the Gilead range is formed of Jura limestone, the base slopes being sandstone partly covered by white marls. The eastern slopes are comparatively bare of trees; but the western are well supplied with oak, terebinth and pine. The pastures are everywhere luxuriant, and the wooded heights and winding glens, in which the tangled shrubbery is here and there broken up by open glades and flat meadows of green turf, exhibit a beauty of vegetation such as is hardly to be seen in any other district of Palestine.

The first biblical mention of “Mount Gilead” occurs in connexion with the reconcilement of Jacob and Laban (Genesis xxxi.). The composite nature of the story makes an identification of the exact site difficult, but one of the narrators (E) seems to have in mind the ridge of what is now known as Jebel Ajlūn, probably not far from Maḥneh (Mahanaim), near the head of the wadi Yābis. Some investigators incline to Sūf, or to the Jebel Kafkafa. At the period of the Israelite conquest the portion of Gilead northward of the Jabbok (Zerka) belonged to the dominions of Og, king of Bashan, while the southern half was ruled by Sihon, king of the Amorites, having been at an earlier date wrested from Moab (Numb. xxi. 24; Deut. iii. 12-16). These two sections were allotted respectively to Manasseh and to Reuben and Gad, both districts being peculiarly suited to the pastoral and nomadic character of these tribes. A somewhat wild Bedouin disposition, fostered by their surroundings, was retained by the Israelite inhabitants of Gilead to a late period of their history, and seems to be to some extent discernible in what we read alike of Jephthah, of David’s Gadites, and of the prophet Elijah. As the eastern frontier of Palestine, Gilead bore the first brunt of Syrian and Assyrian attacks.

After the close of the Old Testament history the word Gilead seldom occurs. It seems to have soon passed out of use as a precise geographical designation; for though occasionally mentioned by Apocryphal writers, by Josephus, and by Eusebius, the allusions are all vague, and show that those who made them had no definite knowledge of Gilead proper. In Josephus and the New Testament the name Peraea or πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου is most frequently used; and the country is sometimes spoken of by Josephus as divided into small provinces called after the capitals in which Greek colonists had established themselves during the reign of the Seleucidae. At present Gilead south of the Jabbok alone is known by the name of Jebel Jilad (Mount Gilead), the northern portion between the Jabbok and the Yarmuk being called Jebel Ajlūn. Jebel Jilad includes Jebel Osha, and has for its capital the town of Es-Salt. The cities of Gilead expressly mentioned in the Old Testament are Ramoth, Jabesh and Jazer. The first of these has been variously identified with Es-Salt, with Reimun, with Jerash or Gerasa, with er-Remtha, and with Ṣalḥad. Opinions are also divided on the question of its identity with Mizpeh-Gilead (see Encyc. Biblica, art. “Ramoth-Gilead”). Jabesh is perhaps to be found at Meriamin, less probably at ed-Deir; Jazer, at Yajuz near Jogbehah, rather than at Sar. The city named Gilead (Judg. x. 17, xii. 7; Hos. vi. 8, xii. 11) has hardly been satisfactorily explained; perhaps the text has suffered.

The “balm” (Heb. ṣori) for which Gilead was so noted (Gen. xlvii. 11; Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17), is probably to be identified with mastic (Gen. xxxvii. 25, R.V. marg.) i.e. the resin yielded by the Pistachia Lentiscus. The modern “balm of Gilead” or “Mecca balsam,” an aromatic gum produced by the Balsamodendron opobalsamum, is more likely the Hebrew mōr, which the English Bible wrongly renders “myrrh.”

GILES (Gil, Gilles), ST, the name given to an abbot whose festival is celebrated on the 1st of September. According to the legend, he was an Athenian (Λἰγίδιος, Aegidius) of royal descent. After the death of his parents he distributed his possessions among the poor, took ship, and landed at Marseilles. Thence he went to Arles, where he remained for two years with St Caesarius. He then retired into a neighbouring desert, where he lived upon herbs and upon the milk of a hind which came to him at stated hours. He was discovered there one day by Flavius, the king of the Goths, who built a monastery on the place, of which he was the first abbot. Scholars are very much divided as to the date of his life, some holding that he lived in the 6th century, others in the 7th or 8th. It may be regarded as certain that St Giles was buried in the hermitage which he had founded in a spot which was afterwards the town of St-Gilles (diocese of Nîmes, department of Gard). His reputation for sanctity attracted many pilgrims. Important gifts were made to the church which contained his body, and a monastery grew up hard by. It is probable that the Visigothic princes who were in possession of the country protected and enriched this monastery, and that it was destroyed by the Saracens at the time of their invasion in 721. But there are no authentic data before the 9th century concerning his history. In 808 Charlemagne took the abbey of St-Gilles under his protection, and it is mentioned among the monasteries from which only prayers for the prince and the state were due. In the 12th century the pilgrimages to St-Gilles are cited as among the most celebrated of the time. The cult of the saint, who came to be regarded as the special patron of lepers, beggars and cripples, spread very extensively over Europe, especially in England, Scotland, France, Belgium and Germany. The church of St Giles, Cripplegate, London, was built about 1090, while the hospital for lepers at St Giles-in-the-Fields (near New Oxford Street) was 18 founded by Queen Matilda in 1117. In England alone there are about 150 churches dedicated to this saint. In Edinburgh the church of St Giles could boast the possession of an arm-bone of its patron. Representations of St Giles are very frequently met with in early French and German art, but are much less common in Italy and Spain.

GILFILLAN, GEORGE (1813-1878), Scottish author, was born on the 30th of January 1813, at Comrie, Perthshire, where his father, the Rev. Samuel Gilfillan, the author of some theological works, was for many years minister of a Secession congregation. After an education at Glasgow University, in March 1836 he was ordained pastor of a Secession congregation in Dundee. He published a volume of his discourses in 1839, and shortly afterwards another sermon on “Hades,” which brought him under the scrutiny of his co-presbyters, and was ultimately withdrawn from circulation. Gilfillan next contributed a series of sketches of celebrated contemporary authors to the Dumfries Herald, then edited by Thomas Aird; and these, with several new ones, formed his first Gallery of Literary Portraits, which appeared in 1846, and had a wide circulation. It was quickly followed by a Second and a Third Gallery. In 1851 his most successful work, the Bards of the Bible, appeared. His aim was that it should be “a poem on the Bible”; and it was far more rhapsodical than critical. His Martyrs and Heroes of the Scottish Covenant appeared in 1832, and in 1856 he produced a partly autobiographical, partly fabulous, History of a Man. For thirty years he was engaged upon a long poem, on Night, which was published in 1867, but its theme was too vast, vague and unmanageable, and the result was a failure. He also edited an edition of the British Poets. As a lecturer and as a preacher he drew large crowds, but his literary reputation has not proved permanent. He died on the 13th of August 1878. He had just finished a new life of Burns designed to accompany a new edition of the works of that poet.

GILGAL (Heb. for “circle” of sacred stones), the name of several places in Palestine, mentioned in the Old Testament. The name is not found east of the Jordan.

1. The first and most important was situated “in the east border of Jericho” (Josh. iv. 19), on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. xv. 7). Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 4) places it 50 stadia from Jordan and 10 from Jericho (the New Testament site). Jerome (Onomasticon, s.v. “Galgal”) places Gilgal 2 Roman miles from Jericho, and speaks of it as a deserted place held in wonderful veneration (“miro cultu”) by the natives. This site, which in the middle ages appears to have been lost—Gilgal being shown farther north—was in 1865 recovered by a German traveller (Hermann Zschokke), and fixed by the English survey party, though not beyond dispute. It is about 2 m. east of the site of Byzantine Jericho, and 1 m. from modern er-Riha. A fine tamarisk, traces of a church (which is mentioned in the 8th century), and a large reservoir, now filled up with mud, remain. The place is called Jiljūlieh, and its position north of the valley of Achor (Wadì Kelt) and east of Jericho agrees well with the biblical indications above mentioned. A tradition connected with the fall of Jericho is attached to the site (see C. R. Conder, Tent Work, 203 ff.). This sanctuary and camp of Israel held a high place in the national regard, and is often mentioned in Judges and Samuel. But whether this is the Gilgal spoken of by Amos and Hosea in connexion with Bethel is by no means certain [see (3) below].

2. Gilgal, mentioned in Josh. xii. 23 in connexion with Dor, appears to have been situated in the maritime plain. Jerome (Onomasticon, s.v. “Gelgel”) speaks of a town of the name 6 Roman miles north of Antipatris (Ras el ‘Ain). This is apparently the modern Kalkilia, but about 4 m. north of Antipatris is a large village called Jiljūlieh, which is more probably the biblical town.

3. The third Gilgal (2 Kings iv. 38) was in the mountains (compare 1 Sam. vii. 16, 2 Kings ii. 1-3) near Bethel. Jerome mentions this place also (Onomasticon, s.v. “Galgala”). It appears to be the present village of Jiljilia, about 7 English miles north of Beitin (Bethel). It may have absorbed the old shrine of Shiloh and been the sanctuary famous in the days of Amos and Hosea.

4. Deut. xi. 30 seems to imply a Gilgal near Gerizim, and there is still a place called Juleijil on the plain of Makhna, 2½ m. S.E. of Shechem. This may have been Amos’s Gilgal and was almost certainly that of 1 Macc. ix. 2.

5. The Gilgal described in Josh. xv. 7 is the same as the Beth-Gilgal of Neh. xii. 29; its site is not known.

GILGAMESH, EPIC OF, the title given to one of the most important literary products of Babylonia, from the name of the chief personage in the series of tales of which it is composed.

Though the Gilgamesh Epic is known to us chiefly from the fragments found in the royal collection of tablets made by Assur-bani-pal, the king of Assyria (668-626 B.C.) for his palace at Nineveh, internal evidence points to the high antiquity of at least some portions of it, and the discovery of a fragment of the epic in the older form of the Babylonian script, which can be dated as 2000 B.C., confirms this view. Equally certain is a second observation of a general character that the epic originating as the greater portion of the literature in Assur-bani-pal’s collection in Babylonia is a composite product, that is to say, it consists of a number of independent stories or myths originating at different times, and united to form a continuous narrative with Gilgamesh as the central figure. This view naturally raises the question whether the independent stories were all told of Gilgamesh or, as almost always happens in the case of ancient tales, were transferred to Gilgamesh as a favourite popular hero. Internal evidence again comes to our aid to lend its weight to the latter theory.

While the existence of such a personage as Gilgamesh may be admitted, he belongs to an age that could only have preserved a dim recollection of his achievements and adventures through oral traditions. The name1 is not Babylonian, and what evidence as to his origin there is points to his having come from Elam, to the east of Babylonia. He may have belonged to the people known as the Kassites who at the beginning of the 18th century B.C. entered Babylonia from Elam, and obtained control of the Euphrates valley. Why and how he came to be a popular hero in Babylonia cannot with our present material be determined, but the epic indicates that he came as a conqueror and established himself at Erech. In so far we have embodied in the first part of the epic dim recollections of actual events, but we soon leave the solid ground of fact and find ourselves soaring to the heights of genuine myth. Gilgamesh becomes a god, and in certain portions of the epic clearly plays the part of the sun-god of the spring-time, taking the place apparently of Tammuz or Adonis, the youthful sun-god, though the story shows traits that differentiate it from the ordinary Tammuz myths. A separate stratum in the Gilgamesh epic is formed by the story of Eabani—introduced as the friend of Gilgamesh, who joins him in his adventures. There can be no doubt that Eabani, who symbolizes primeval man, was a figure originally entirely independent of Gilgamesh, but his story was incorporated into the epic by that natural process to be observed in the national epics of other peoples, which tends to connect the favourite hero with all kinds of tales that for one reason or the other become embedded in the popular mind. Another stratum is represented by the story of a favourite of the gods known as Ut-Napishtim, who is saved from a destructive storm and flood that destroys 19 his fellow-citizens of Shurippak. Gilgamesh is artificially brought into contact with Ut-Napishtim, to whom he pays a visit for the purpose of learning the secret of immortal life and perpetual youth which he enjoys. During the visit Ut-Napishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of the flood and of his miraculous escape. Nature myths have been entwined with other episodes in the epic and finally the theologians took up the combined stories and made them the medium for illustrating the truth and force of certain doctrines of the Babylonian religion. In its final form, the outcome of an extended and complicated literary process, the Gilgamesh Epic covered twelve tablets, each tablet devoted to one adventure in which the hero plays a direct or indirect part, and the whole covering according to the most plausible estimate about 3000 lines. Of all twelve tablets portions have been found among the remains of Assur-bani-pal’s library, but some of the tablets are so incomplete as to leave even their general contents in some doubt. The fragments do not all belong to one copy. Of some tablets portions of two, and of some tablets portions of as many as four, copies have turned up, pointing therefore to the great popularity of the production. The best preserved are Tablets VI. and XI., and of the total about 1500 lines are now known, wholly or in part, while of those partially preserved quite a number can be restored. A brief summary of the contents of the twelve may be indicated as follows:

In the 1st tablet, after a general survey of the adventures of Gilgamesh, his rule at Erech is described, where he enlists the services of all the young able-bodied men in the building of the great wall of the city. The people sigh under the burden imposed, and call upon the goddess Aruru to create a being who might act as a rival to Gilgamesh, curb his strength, and dispute his tyrannous control. The goddess consents, and creates Eabani, who is described as a wild man, living with the gazelles and the beasts of the field. Eabani, whose name, signifying “Ea creates,” points to the tradition which made Ea (q.v.) the creator of humanity, symbolizes primeval man. Through a hunter, Eabani and Gilgamesh are brought together, but instead of becoming rivals, they are joined in friendship. Eabani is induced by the snares of a maiden to abandon his life with the animals and to proceed to Erech, where Gilgamesh, who has been told in several dreams of the coming of Eabani, awaits him. Together they proceed upon several adventures, which are related in the following four tablets. At first, indeed, Eabani curses the fate which led him away from his former life, and Gilgamesh is represented as bewailing Eabani’s dissatisfaction. The sun-god Shamash calls upon Eabani to remain with Gilgamesh, who pays him all honours in his palace at Erech. With the decision of the two friends to proceed to the forest of cedars in which the goddess Irnina—a form of Ishtar—dwells, and which is guarded by Khumbaba, the 2nd tablet ends. In the 3rd tablet, very imperfectly preserved, Gilgamesh appeals through a Shamash priestess Rimat-Belit to the sun-god Shamash for his aid in the proposed undertaking. The 4th tablet contains a description of the formidable Khumbaba, the guardian of the cedar forest. In the 5th tablet Gilgamesh and Eabani reach the forest. Encouraged by dreams, they proceed against Khumbaba, and despatch him near a specially high cedar over which he held guard. This adventure against Khumbaba belongs to the Eabani stratum of the epic, into which Gilgamesh is artificially introduced. The basis of the 6th tablet is the familiar nature-myth of the change of seasons, in which Gilgamesh plays the part of the youthful solar god of the springtime, who is wooed by the goddess of fertility, Ishtar. Gilgamesh, recalling to the goddess the sad fate of those who fall a victim to her charms, rejects the offer. In the course of his recital snatches of other myths are referred to, including he famous Tammuz-Adonis tale, in which Tammuz, the youthful bridegroom, is slain by his consort Ishtar. The goddess, enraged at the insult, asks her father Anu to avenge her. A divine bull is sent to wage a contest against Gilgamesh, who is assisted by his friend Eabani. This scene of the fight with the bull is often depicted on seal cylinders. The two friends by their united force succeed in killing the bull, and then after performing certain votive and purification rites return to Erech, where they are hailed with joy. In this adventure it is clearly Eabani who is artificially introduced in order to maintain the association with Gilgamesh. The 7th tablet continues the Eabani stratum. The hero is smitten with sore disease, but the fragmentary condition of this and the succeeding tablet is such as to envelop in doubt the accompanying circumstances, including the cause and nature of his disease. The 8th tablet records the death of Eabani. The 9th and 10th tablets, exclusively devoted to Gilgamesh, describe his wanderings in quest of Ut-Napishtim, from whom he hopes to learn how he may escape the fate that has overtaken his friend Eabani. He goes through mountain passes and encounters lions. At the entrance to the mountain Mashu, scorpion-men stand guard, from one of whom he receives advice as to how to pass through the Mashu district. He succeeds in doing so, and finds himself in a wonderful park, which lies along the sea coast. In the 10th tablet the goddess Sabitu, who, as guardian of the sea, first bolts her gate against Gilgamesh, after learning of his quest, helps him to pass in a ship across the sea to the “waters of death.” The ferry-man of Ut-Napishtim brings him safely through these waters, despite the difficulties and dangers of the voyage, and at last the hero finds himself face to face with Ut-Napishtim. In the 11th tablet, Ut-Napishtim tells the famous story of the Babylonian flood, which is so patently attached to Gilgamesh in a most artificial manner. Ut-Napishtim and his wife are anxious to help Gilgamesh to new life. He is sent to a place where he washes himself clean from impurity. He is told of a weed which restores youth to the one grown old. Scarcely has he obtained the weed when it is snatched away from him, and the tablet closes somewhat obscurely with the prediction of the destruction of Erech. In the 12th tablet Gilgamesh succeeds in obtaining a view of Eabani’s shade, and learns through him of the sad fate endured by the dead. With this description, in which care of the dead is inculcated as the only means of making their existence in Aralu, where the dead are gathered, bearable, the epic, so far as we have it, closes.

The reason why the flood episode and the interview with the dead Eabani are introduced is quite clear. Both are intended as illustrations of doctrines taught in the schools of Babylonia; the former to explain that only the favourites of the gods can hope under exceptional circumstances to enjoy life everlasting; the latter to emphasize the impossibility for ordinary mortals to escape from the inactive shadowy existence led by the dead, and to inculcate the duty of proper care for the dead. That the astro-theological system is also introduced into the epic is clear from the division into twelve tablets, which correspond to the yearly course of the sun, while throughout there are indications that all the adventures of Gilgamesh and Eabani, including those which have an historical background, have been submitted to the influence of this system and projected on to the heavens. This interpretation of the popular tales, according to which the career of the hero can be followed in its entirety and in detail in the movements in the heavens, in time, with the growing predominance of the astral-mythological system, overshadowed the other factors involved, and it is in this form, as an astral myth, that it passes through the ancient world and leaves its traces in the folk-tales and myths of Hebrews, Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans throughout Asia Minor and even in India.

GILGIT, an outlying province in the extreme north-west of India, over which Kashmir has reasserted her sovereignty. Only a part of the basin of the river Gilgit is included within its political boundaries. There is an intervening width of 20 mountainous country, represented chiefly by glaciers and ice-fields, and intersected by narrow sterile valleys, measuring some 100 to 150 m. in width, to the north and north-east, which separates the province of Gilgit from the Chinese frontier beyond the Muztagh and Karakoram. This part of the Kashmir borderland includes Kanjut (or Hunza) and Ladakh. To the north-west, beyond the sources of the Yasin and Ghazar in the Shandur range (the two most westerly tributaries of the Gilgit river) is the deep valley of the Yarkhun or Chitral. Since the formation of the North-West Frontier Province in 1901, the political charge of Chitral, Dir and Swat, which was formerly included within the Gilgit agency, has been transferred to the chief commissioner of the new province, with his capital at Peshawar. Gilgit proper now forms a wazarat of the Kashmir state, administered by a wazir. Gilgit is also the headquarters of a British political agent, who exercises some supervision over the wazir, and is directly responsible to the government of India for the administration of the outlying districts or petty states of Hunza, Nagar, Ashkuman, Yasin and Ghizar, the little republic of Chilas, &c. These states acknowledge the suzerainty of Kashmir, paying an annual tribute in gold or grain, but they form no part of its territory.

Within the wider limits of the former Gilgit agency are many mixed races, speaking different languages, which have all been usually classed together under the name Dard. The Dard, however, is unknown beyond the limits of the Kohistan district of the Indus valley to the south of the Hindu Koh, the rest of the inhabitants of the Indus valley belonging to Shin republics, or Chilas. The great mass of the Chitral population are Kho (speaking Khowar), and they may be accepted as representing the aboriginal population of the Chitral valley. (See Hindu Kush.) Between Chitral and the Indus the “Dards” of Dardistan are chiefly Yeshkuns and Shins, and it would appear from the proportions in which these people occupy the country that they must have primarily moved up from the valley of the Indus in successive waves of conquest, first the Yeshkuns, and then the Shins. No one can put a date to these invasions, but Biddulph is inclined to class the Yeshkuns with the Yuechi who conquered the Bactrian kingdom about 120 B.C. The Shins are obviously a Hindu race (as is testified by their veneration for the cow), who spread themselves northwards and eastwards as far as Baltistan, where they collided with the aboriginal Tatar of the Asiatic highlands. But the ethnography of “Dardistan,” or the Gilgit agency (for the two are, roughly speaking, synonymous), requires further investigation, and it would be premature to attempt to frame anything like an ethnographical history of these regions until the neighbouring provinces of Tangir and Darel have been more fully examined. The wazarat of Gilgit contains a population (1901) of 60,885, all Mahommedans, mostly of the Shiah sect, but not fanatical. The dominant race is that of the Shins, whose language is universally spoken. This is one of the so-called Pisacha languages, an archaic Aryan group intermediate between the Iranian and the Sanskritic.

In general appearance and dress all the mountain-bred peoples extending through these northern districts are very similar. Thick felt coats reaching below the knee, loose “pyjamas” with cloth “putties” and boots (often of English make) are almost universal, the distinguishing feature in their costume being the felt cap worn close to the head and rolled up round the edges. They are on the whole a light-hearted, cheerful race of people, but it has been observed that their temperament varies much with their habitat—those who live on the shadowed sides of mountains being distinctly more morose and more serious in disposition than the dwellers in valleys which catch the winter sunlight. They are, at the same time, bloodthirsty and treacherous to a degree which would appear incredible to a casual observer of their happy and genial manners, exhibiting a strange combination (as has been observed by a careful student of their ways) of “the monkey and the tiger.” Addicted to sport of every kind, they pursue no manufacturing industries whatsoever, but they are excellent agriculturists, and show great ingenuity in their local irrigation works and in their efforts to bring every available acre of cultivable soil within the irrigated area. Gold washing is more or less carried on in most of the valleys north of the river Gilgit, and gold dust (contained in small packets formed with the petals of a cup-shaped flower) is an invariable item in their official presents and offerings. Gold dust still constitutes part of the annual tribute which, strangely enough, is paid by Hunza to China, as well as to Kashmir.

History.—The Dards are located by Ptolemy with surprising accuracy (Daradae) on the west of the Upper Indus, beyond the head-waters of the Swat river (Soastus), and north of the Gandarae, i.e. the Gandharis, who occupied Peshawar and the country north of it. The Dardas and Chinas also appear in many of the old Pauranic lists of peoples, the latter probably representing the Shin branch of the Dards. This region was traversed by two of the Chinese pilgrims of the early centuries of our era, who have left records of their journeys, viz. Fahien, coming from the north, c. 400, and Hsüan Tsang, ascending from Swat, c. 631. The latter says: “Perilous were the roads, and dark the gorges. Sometimes the pilgrim had to pass by loose cords, sometimes by light stretched iron chains. Here there were ledges hanging in mid-air; there flying bridges across abysses; elsewhere paths cut with the chisel, or footings to climb by.” Yet even in these inaccessible regions were found great convents, and miraculous images of Buddha. How old the name of Gilgit is we do not know, but it occurs in the writings of the great Mahommedan savant al-Biruni, in his notices of Indian geography. Speaking of Kashmir, he says: “Leaving the ravine by which you enter Kashmir and entering the plateau, then you have for a march of two more days on your left the mountains of Bolor and Shamilan, Turkish tribes who are called Bhattavaryan. Their king has the title Bhatta-Shah. Their towns are Gilgit, Aswira and Shiltash, and their language is the Turkish. Kashmir suffers much from their inroads” (Trs. Sachau, i. 207). There are difficult matters for discussion here. It is impossible to say what ground the writer had for calling the people Turks. But it is curious that the Shins say they are all of the same race as the Moguls of India, whatever they may mean by that. Gilgit, as far back as tradition goes, was ruled by rajas of a family called Trakane. When this family became extinct the valley was desolated by successive invasions of neighbouring rajas, and in the 20 or 30 years ending with 1842 there had been five dynastic revolutions. The most prominent character in the history was a certain Gaur Rahman or Gauhar Aman, chief of Yasin, a cruel savage and man-seller, of whom many evil deeds are told. Being remonstrated with for selling a mullah, he said, “Why not? The Koran, the word of God, is sold; why not sell the expounder thereof?” The Sikhs entered Gilgit about 1842, and kept a garrison there. When Kashmir was made over to Maharaja Gulab Singh of Jammu in 1846, by Lord Hardinge, the Gilgit claims were transferred with it. And when a commission was sent to lay down boundaries of the tracts made over, Mr Vans Agnew (afterwards murdered at Multan) and Lieut. Ralph Young of the Engineers visited Gilgit, the first Englishmen who did so. The Dogras (Gulab Singh’s race) had much ado to hold their ground, and in 1852 a catastrophe occurred, parallel on a smaller scale to that of the English troops at Kabul. Nearly 2000 men of theirs were exterminated by Gaur Rahman and a combination of the Dards; only one person, a soldier’s wife, escaped, and the Dogras were driven away for eight years. Gulab Singh would not again cross the Indus, but after his death (in 1857) Maharaja Ranbir Singh longed to recover lost prestige. In 1860 he sent a force into Gilgit. Gaur Rahman just then died, and there was little resistance. The Dogras after that took Yasin twice, but did not hold it. They also, in 1866, invaded Darel, one of the most secluded Dard states, to the south of the Gilgit basin, but withdrew again. In 1889, in order to guard against the advance of Russia, the British government, acting as the suzerain power of Kashmir, established the Gilgit agency; in 1901, on the formation of the North-West Frontier province, the rearrangement was made as stated above.

GILL, JOHN (1697-1771), English Nonconformist divine, was born at Kettering, Northamptonshire. His parents were poor and he owed his education chiefly to his own perseverance. In November 1716 he was baptized and began to preach at Higham Ferrers and Kettering, until the beginning of 1719, when he became pastor of the Baptist congregation at Horsleydown in Southwark. There he continued till 1757, when he removed to a chapel near London Bridge. From 1729 to 1756 he was Wednesday evening lecturer in Great Eastcheap. In 1748 he received the degree of D.D. from the university of Aberdeen. He died at Camberwell on the 14th of October 1771. Gill was a great Hebrew scholar, and in his theology a sturdy Calvinist.

GILL. (1) One of the branchiae which form the breathing apparatus of fishes and other animals that live in the water. The word is also applied to the branchiae of some kinds of worm and arachnids, and by transference to objects resembling the branchiae of fishes, such as the wattles of a fowl, or the radiating films on the under side of fungi. The word is of obscure origin. Danish has giaelle, and Swedish gäl with the same meaning. The root which appears in “yawn,” “chasm,” has been suggested. If this be correct, the word will be in origin the same as “gill,” often spelled “ghyll,” meaning a glen or ravine, common in northern English dialects and also in Kent and Surrey. The g in both these words is hard. (2) A liquid measure usually holding 22 one-fourth of a pint. The word comes through the O. Fr. gelle, from Low Lat. gello or gillo, a measure for wine. It is thus connected with “gallon.” The g is soft. (3) An abbreviation of the feminine name Gillian, also often spelled Jill, as it is pronounced. Like Jack for a boy, with which it is often coupled, as in the nursery rhyme, it is used as a homely generic name for a girl.

GILLES DE ROYE, or Egidius de Roya (d. 1478), Flemish chronicler, was born probably at Montdidier, and became a Cistercian monk. He was afterwards professor of theology in Paris and abbot of the monastery of Royaumont at Asnières-sur-Oise, retiring about 1458 to the convent of Notre Dame des Dunes, near Furnes, and devoting his time to study. Gilles wrote the Chronicon Dunense or Annales Belgici, a résumé and continuation of the work of another monk, Jean Brandon (d. 1428), which deals with the history of Flanders, and also with events in Germany, Italy and England from 792 to 1478.

GILLES LI MUISIS, or Le Muiset (c. 1272-1352), French chronicler, was born probably at Tournai, and in 1289 entered the Benedictine abbey of St Martin in his native city, becoming prior of this house in 1327, and abbot four years later. He only secured the latter position after a contest with a competitor, but he appears to have been a wise ruler of the abbey. Gilles wrote two Latin chronicles, Chronicon majus and Chronicon minus, dealing with the history of the world from the creation until 1349. This work, which was continued by another writer to 1352, is valuable for the history of northern France, and Flanders during the first half of the 14th century. It is published by J. J. de Senet in the Corpus chronicorum Flandriae, tome ii. (Brussels, 1841); Gilles also wrote some French poems, and these Poésies de Gilles li Muisis have been published by Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove (Louvain, 1882).

GILLESPIE, GEORGE (1613-1648), Scottish divine, was born at Kirkcaldy, where his father, John Gillespie, was parish minister, on the 21st of January 1613, and entered the university of St Andrews as a “presbytery bursar” in 1629. On the completion of a brilliant student career, he became domestic chaplain to John Gordon, 1st Viscount Kenmure (d. 1634), and afterwards to John Kennedy, earl of Cassillis, his conscience not permitting him to accept the episcopal ordination which was at that time in Scotland an indispensable condition of induction to a parish. While with the earl of Cassillis he wrote his first work, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland, which, opportunely published shortly after the “Jenny Geddes” incident (but without the author’s name) in the summer of 1637, attracted considerable attention, and within a few months had been found by the privy council to be so damaging that by their orders all available copies were called in and burnt. In April 1638, soon after the authority of the bishops had been set aside by the nation, Gillespie was ordained minister of Wemyss (Fife) by the presbytery of Kirkcaldy, and in the same year was a member of the famous Glasgow Assembly, before which he preached (November 21st) a sermon against royal interference in matters ecclesiastical so pronounced, as to call for some remonstrance on the part of Argyll, the lord high commissioner. In 1642 Gillespie was translated to Edinburgh; but the brief remainder of his life was chiefly spent in the conduct of public business in London. Already, in 1640, he had accompanied the commissioners of the peace to England as one of their chaplains; and in 1643 he was appointed by the Scottish Church one of the four commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. Here, though the youngest member of the Assembly, he took a prominent part in almost all the protracted discussions on church government, discipline and worship, supporting Presbyterianism by numerous controversial writings, as well as by an unusual fluency and readiness in debate. Tradition long preserved and probably enhanced the record of his victories in debate, and especially of his encounter, with John Selden on Matt. xviii. 15-17. In 1645 he returned to Scotland, and is said to have drawn the act of assembly sanctioning the directory of public worship. On his return to London he had a hand in drafting the Westminster confession of faith, especially chap. i. Gillespie was elected moderator of the Assembly in 1648, but the laborious duties of that office (the court continued to sit from the 12th of July to the 12th of August) told fatally on an overtaxed constitution; he fell into consumption, and, after many weeks of great weakness, he died at Kirkcaldy on the 17th of December 1648. In acknowledgment of his great public services, a sum of £1000 Scots was voted, though destined never to be paid, to his widow and children by the committee of estates. A simple tombstone, which had been erected to his memory in Kirkcaldy parish church, was in 1661 publicly broken at the cross by the hand of the common hangman, but was restored in 1746.

GILLESPIE, THOMAS (1708-1774), Scottish divine, was born at Clearburn, in the parish of Duddingston, Midlothian, in 1708. He was educated at the university of Edinburgh, and studied divinity first at a small theological seminary at Perth, and afterwards for a brief period under Philip Doddridge at Northampton, where he received ordination in January 1741. In September of the same year he was admitted minister of the parish of Carnock, Fife, the presbytery of Dunfermline agreeing not only to sustain as valid the ordination he had received in England, but also to allow a qualification of his subscription to the church’s doctrinal symbol, so far as it had reference to the sphere of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. Having on conscientious grounds persistently absented himself from the meetings of presbytery held for the purpose of ordaining one Andrew Richardson, an unacceptable presentee, as minister of Inverkeithing, he was, after an unobtrusive but useful ministry of ten years, deposed by the Assembly of 1752 for maintaining that the refusal of the local presbytery to act in this case was justified. He continued, however, to preach, first at Carnock, and afterwards in Dunfermline, where a large congregation gathered round him. His conduct under the sentence of deposition produced a reaction in his favour, and an effort was made to have him reinstated; this he declined unless the policy of the church were reversed. In 1761, in conjunction with Thomas Boston of Jedburgh and Collier of Colinsburgh, he formed a distinct communion under the name of “The Presbytery of Relief,”—relief, that is to say, “from the yoke of patronage and the tyranny of the church courts.” The Relief Church eventually became one of the communions combining to form the United Presbyterian Church. He died on the 19th of January 1774. His only literary efforts were an Essay on the Continuation of Immediate Revelations in the Church, and a Practical Treatise on Temptation. Both works appeared posthumously (1774). In the former he argues that immediate revelations are no longer vouchsafed to the church, in the latter he traces temptation to the work of a personal devil.

GILLIE (from the Gael. gille, Irish gille or giolla, a servant or boy), an attendant on a Gaelic chieftain; in this sense its use, save historically, is rare. The name is now applied in the Highlands of Scotland to the man-servant who attends a sportsman in shooting or fishing. A gillie-wetfoot, a term now obsolete (a translation of gillie-casfliuch, from the Gaelic cas, foot, and 23 fliuch, wet), was the gillie whose duty it was to carry his master over streams. It became a term of contempt among the Lowlanders for the “tail” (as his attendants were called) of a Highland chief.

GILLIES, JOHN (1747-1836), Scottish historian and classical scholar, was born at Brechin, in Forfarshire, on the 18th of January 1747. He was educated at Glasgow University, where, at the age of twenty, he acted for a short time as substitute for the professor of Greek. In 1784 he completed his History of Ancient Greece, its Colonies and Conquests (published 1786). This work, valuable at a time when the study of Greek history was in its infancy, and translated into French and German, was written from a strong Whig bias, and is now entirely superseded (see Greece: Ancient History, “Authorities”). On the death of William Robertson (1721-1793), Gillies was appointed historiographer-royal for Scotland. In his old age he retired to Clapham, where he died on the 15th of February 1836.

GILLINGHAM, a market town in the northern parliamentary division of Dorsetshire, England, 105 m. W.S.W. from London by the London & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3380. The church of St Mary the Virgin has a Decorated chancel. There is a large agricultural trade, and manufactures of bricks and tiles, cord, sacking and silk, brewing and bacon-curing are carried on. The rich undulating district in which Gillingham is situated was a forest preserved by King John and his successors, and the site of their lodge is traceable near the town.

GILLINGHAM, a municipal borough of Kent, England, in the parliamentary borough of Chatham and the mid-division of the county, on the Medway immediately east of Chatham, on the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1891) 27,809; (1901) 42,530. Its population is largely industrial, employed in the Chatham dockyards, and in cement and brick works in the neighbourhood. The church of St Mary Magdalene ranges in date from Early English to Perpendicular, retaining also traces of Norman work and some early brasses. A great battle between Edmund Ironside and Canute, c. 1016, is placed here; and there was formerly a palace of the archbishops of Canterbury. Gillingham was incorporated in 1903, and is governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. The borough includes the populous districts of Brompton and New Brompton. Area, 4355 acres.

GILLOT, CLAUDE (1673-1722), French painter, best known as the master of Watteau and Lancret, was born at Langres. His sportive mythological landscape pieces, with such titles as “Feast of Pan” and “Feast of Bacchus,” opened the Academy of Painting at Paris to him in 1715; and he then adapted his art to the fashionable tastes of the day, and introduced the decorative fêtes champêtres, in which he was afterwards surpassed by his pupils. He was also closely connected with the opera and theatre as a designer of scenery and costumes.

GILLOTT, JOSEPH (1799-1873); English pen-maker, was born at Sheffield on the 11th of October 1799. For some time he was a working cutler there, but in 1821 removed to Birmingham, where he found employment in the “steel toy” trade, the technical name for the manufacture of steel buckles, chains and light ornamental steel-work generally. About 1830 he turned his attention to the manufacture of steel pens by machinery, and in 1831 patented a process for placing elongated points on the nibs of pens. Subsequently he invented other improvements, getting rid of the hardness and lack of flexibility, which had been a serious defect in nibs, by cutting, in addition to the centre slit, side slits, and cross grinding the points. By 1859 he had built up a very large business. Gillott was a liberal art-patron, and one of the first to recognize the merits of J. M. W. Turner. He died at Birmingham on the 5th of January 1873. His collection of pictures, sold after his death, realized £170,000.

GILLOW, ROBERT (d. 1773), the founder at Lancaster of a distinguished firm of English cabinet-makers and furniture designers whose books begin in 1731. He was succeeded by his eldest son Richard (1734-1811), who after being educated at the Roman Catholic seminary at Douai was taken into partnership about 1757, when the firm became Gillow & Barton, and his younger sons Robert and Thomas, and the business was continued by his grandson Richard (1778-1866). In its early days the firm of Gillow were architects as well as cabinet-makers, and the first Richard Gillow designed the classical Custom House at Lancaster. In the middle of the 18th century the business was extended to London, and about 1761 premises were opened in Oxford Street on a site which was continuously occupied until 1906. For a long period the Gillows were the best-known makers of English furniture—Sheraton and Heppelwhite both designed for them, and replicas are still made of pieces from the drawings of Robert Adam. Between 1760 and 1770 they invented the original form of the billiard-table; they were the patentees (about 1800) of the telescopic dining-table which has long been universal in English houses; for a Captain Davenport they made, if they did not invent, the first writing-table of that name. Their vogue is indicated by references to them in the works of Jane Austen, Thackeray and the first Lord Lytton, and more recently in one of Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic operas.

GILLRAY, JAMES (1757-1815), English caricaturist, was born at Chelsea in 1757. His father, a native of Lanark, had served as a soldier, losing an arm at Fontenoy, and was admitted first as an inmate, and afterwards as an outdoor pensioner, at Chelsea hospital. Gillray commenced life by learning letter-engraving, in which he soon became an adept. This employment, however, proving irksome, he wandered about for a time with a company of strolling players. After a very checkered experience he returned to London, and was admitted a student in the Royal Academy, supporting himself by engraving, and probably issuing a considerable number of caricatures under fictitious names. Hogarth’s works were the delight and study of his early years. “Paddy on Horseback,” which appeared in 1779, is the first caricature which is certainly his. Two caricatures on Rodney’s naval victory, issued in 1782, were among the first of the memorable series of his political sketches. The name of Gillray’s publisher and printseller, Miss Humphrey—whose shop was first at 227 Strand, then in New Bond Street, then in Old Bond Street, and finally in St James’s Street—is inextricably associated with that of the caricaturist. Gillray lived with Miss (often called Mrs) Humphrey during all the period of his fame. It is believed that he several times thought of marrying her, and that on one occasion the pair were on their way to the church, when Gillray said: “This is a foolish affair, methinks, Miss Humphrey. We live very comfortably together; we had better let well alone.” There is no evidence, however, to support the stories which scandalmongers invented about their relations. Gillray’s plates were exposed in Humphrey’s shop window, where eager crowds examined them. A number of his most trenchant satires are directed against George III., who, after examining some of Gillray’s sketches, said, with characteristic ignorance and blindness to merit, “I don’t understand these caricatures.” Gillray revenged himself for this utterance by his splendid caricature entitled, “A Connoisseur Examining a Cooper,” which he is doing by means of a candle on a “save-all”; so that the sketch satirizes at once the king’s pretensions to knowledge of art and his miserly habits.

The excesses of the French Revolution made Gillray conservative; and he issued caricature after caricature, ridiculing the French and Napoleon, and glorifying John Bull. He is not, however, to be thought of as a keen political adherent of either the Whig or the Tory party; he dealt his blows pretty freely all round. His last work, from a design by Bunbury, is entitled “Interior of a Barber’s Shop in Assize Time,” and is dated 1811. While he was engaged on it he became mad, although he had occasional intervals of sanity, which he employed on his last work. The approach of madness must have been hastened by his intemperate habits. Gillray died on 24 the 1st of June 1815, and was buried in St James’s churchyard, Piccadilly.

The times in which Gillray lived were peculiarly favourable to the growth of a great school of caricature. Party warfare was carried on with great vigour and not a little bitterness; and personalities were freely indulged in on both sides. Gillray’s incomparable wit and humour, knowledge of life, fertility of resource, keen sense of the ludicrous, and beauty of execution, at once gave him the first place among caricaturists. He is honourably distinguished in the history of caricature by the fact that his sketches are real works of art. The ideas embodied in some of them are sublime and poetically magnificent in their intensity of meaning; while the coarseness by which others are disfigured is to be explained by the general freedom of treatment common in all intellectual departments in the 18th century. The historical value of Gillray’s work has been recognized by accurate students of history. As has been well remarked: “Lord Stanhope has turned Gillray to account as a veracious reporter of speeches, as well as a suggestive illustrator of events.” His contemporary political influence is borne witness to in a letter from Lord Bateman, dated November 3, 1798. “The Opposition,” he writes to Gillray, “are as low as we can wish them. You have been of infinite service in lowering them, and making them ridiculous.” Gillray’s extraordinary industry may be inferred from the fact that nearly 1000 caricatures have been attributed to him; while some consider him the author of 1600 or 1700. He is invaluable to the student of English manners as well as to the political student. He attacks the social follies of the time with scathing satire; and nothing escapes his notice, not even a trifling change of fashion in dress. The great tact Gillray displays in hitting on the ludicrous side of any subject is only equalled by the exquisite finish of his sketches—the finest of which reach an epic grandeur and Miltonic sublimity of conception.

GILLYFLOWER, a popular name applied to various flowers, but principally to the clove, Dianthus Caryophyllus, of which the carnation is a cultivated variety, and to the stock, Matthiola incana, a well-known garden favourite. The word is sometimes written gilliflower or gilloflower, and is reputedly a corruption of July-flower, “so called from the month they blow in.” Henry Phillips (1775-1838); in his Flora historica, remarks that Turner (1568) “calls it gelouer, to which he adds the word stock, as we would say gelouers that grow on a stem or stock, to distinguish them from the clove-gelouers and the wall-gelouers. Gerard, who succeeded Turner, and after him Parkinson, calls it gilloflower, and thus it travelled from its original orthography until it was called July-flower by those who knew not whence it was derived.” Dr Prior, in his useful volume on the Popular Names of British Plants, very distinctly shows the origin of the name. He remarks that it was “formerly spelt gyllofer and gilofre with the o long, from the French giroflée, Italian garofalo (M. Lat. gariofilum), corrupted from the Latin Caryophyllum, and referring to the spicy odour of the flower, which seems to have been used in flavouring wine and other liquors to replace the more costly clove of India. The name was originally given in Italy to plants of the pink tribe, especially the carnation, but has in England been transferred of late years to several cruciferous plants.” The gillyflower of Chaucer and Spenser and Shakespeare was, as in Italy, Dianthus Caryophyllus; that of later writers and of gardeners, Matthiola. Much of the confusion in the names of plants has doubtless arisen from the vague use of the French terms giroflée, œillet and violette, which were all applied to flowers of the pink tribe, but in England were subsequently extended and finally restricted to very different plants. The use made of the flowers to impart a spicy flavour to ale and wine is alluded to by Chaucer, who writes:

also by Spenser, who refers to them by the name of sops in wine, which was applied in consequence of their being steeped in the liquor. In both these cases, however, it is the clove-gillyflower which is intended, as it is also in the passage from Gerard, in which he states that the conserve made of the flowers with sugar “is exceeding cordiall, and wonderfully above measure doth comfort the heart, being eaten now and then.” The principal other plants which bear the name are the wallflower, Cheiranthus Cheiri, called wall-gillyflower in old books; the dame’s violet, Hesperis matronalis, called variously the queen’s, the rogue’s and the winter gillyflower; the ragged-robin, Lychnis Flos-cuculi, called marsh-gillyflower and cuckoo-gillyflower; the water-violet, Hottonia palustris, called water-gillyflower; and the thrift, Armeria vulgaris, called sea-gillyflower. As a separate designation it is nowadays usually applied to the wallflower.

GILMAN, DANIEL COIT (1831-1908), American educationist, was born in Norwich, Connecticut, on the 6th of July 1831. He graduated at Yale in 1852, studied in Berlin, was assistant librarian of Yale in 1856-1858 and librarian in 1858-1865, and was professor of physical and political geography in the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University and a member of the 25 Governing Board of this School in 1863-1872. From 1856 to 1860 he was a member of the school board of New Haven, and from August 1865 to January 1867 secretary of the Connecticut Board of Education. In 1872 he became president of the University of California at Berkeley. On the 30th of December 1874 he was elected first president of Johns Hopkins University (q.v.) at Baltimore. He entered upon his duties on the 1st of May 1875, and was formally inaugurated on the 22nd of February 1876. This post he filled until 1901. From 1901 to 1904 he was the first president of the Carnegie Institution at Washington, D.C. He died at Norwich, Conn., on the 13th of October 1908. He received the honorary degree of LL.D. from Harvard, St John’s, Columbia, Yale, North Carolina, Princeton, Toronto, Wisconsin and Clark Universities, and William and Mary College. His influence upon higher education in America was great, especially at Johns Hopkins, where many wise details of administration, the plan of bringing to the university as lecturers for a part of the year scholars from other colleges, the choice of a singularly brilliant and able faculty, and the marked willingness to recognize workers in new branches of science were all largely due to him. To the organization of the Johns Hopkins hospital, of which he was made director in 1889, he contributed greatly. He was a singularly good judge of men and an able administrator, and under him Johns Hopkins had an immense influence, especially in the promotion of original and productive research. He was always deeply interested in the researches of the professors at Johns Hopkins, and it has been said of him that his attention as president was turned inside and not outside the university. He was instrumental in determining the policy of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University while he was a member of its governing board; on the 28th of October 1897 he delivered at New Haven a semi-centennial discourse on the school, which appears in his University Problems. He was a prominent member of the American Archaeological Society and of the American Oriental Society; was one of the original trustees of the John F. Slater Fund (for a time he was secretary, and from 1893 until his death was president of the board); from 1891 until his death was a trustee of the Peabody Educational Fund (being the vice-president of the board); and was an original member of the General Education Board (1902) and a trustee of the Russell Sage Foundation for Social Betterment (1907). In 1896-1897 he served on the Venezuela Boundary Commission appointed by President Cleveland. In 1901 he succeeded Carl Schurz as president of the National Civil Service Reform League and served until 1907. Some of his papers and addresses are collected in a volume entitled University Problems in the United States (1888). He wrote, besides, James Monroe (1883), in the American Statesmen Series; a Life of James D. Dana, the geologist (1899); Science and Letters at Yale (1901), and The Launching of a University (1906), an account of the early years of Johns Hopkins.

GILMORE, PATRICK SARSFIELD (1829-1892), American bandmaster, was born in Ireland, and settled in America about 1850. He had been in the band of an Irish regiment, and he had great success as leader of a military band at Salem, Massachusetts, and subsequently (1859) in Boston. He increased his reputation during the Civil War, particularly by organizing a monster orchestra of massed bands for a festival at New Orleans in 1864; and at Boston in 1869 and 1872 he gave similar performances. He was enormously popular as a bandmaster, and composed or arranged a large variety of pieces for orchestra. He died at St Louis on the 24th of September 1892.

GILPIN, BERNARD (1517-1583), the “Apostle of the North,” was descended from a Westmorland family, and was born at Kentmere in 1517. He was educated at Queen’s College, Oxford, graduating B.A. in 1540, M.A. in 1542 and B.D. in 1549. He was elected fellow of Queen’s and ordained in 1542; subsequently he was elected student of Christ Church. At Oxford he first adhered to the conservative side, and defended the doctrines of the church against Hooper; but his confidence was somewhat shaken by another public disputation which he had with Peter Martyr. In 1552 he preached before King Edward VI. a sermon on sacrilege, which was duly published, and displays the high ideal which even then he had formed of the clerical office; and about the same time he was presented to the vicarage of Norton, in the diocese of Durham, and obtained a licence, through William Cecil, as a general preacher throughout the kingdom as long as the king lived. On Mary’s accession he went abroad to pursue his theological investigations at Louvain, Antwerp and Paris; and from a letter of his own, dated Louvain, 1554, we get a glimpse of the quiet student rejoicing in an “excellent library belonging to a monastery of Minorites.” Returning to England towards the close of Queen Mary’s reign, he was invested by his mother’s uncle, Tunstall, bishop of Durham, with the archdeaconry of Durham, to which the rectory of Easington was annexed. The freedom of his attacks on the vices, and especially the clerical vices, of his times excited hostility against him, and he was formally brought before the bishop on a charge consisting of thirteen articles. Tunstall, however, not only dismissed the case, but presented the offender with the rich living of Houghton-le-Spring; and when the accusation was again brought forward, he again protected him. Enraged at this defeat, Gilpin’s enemies laid their complaint before Bonner, bishop of London, who secured a royal warrant for his apprehension. Upon this Gilpin prepared for martyrdom; and, having ordered his house-steward to provide him with a long garment, that he might “goe the more comely to the stake,” he set out for London. Fortunately, however, for him, he broke his leg on the journey, and his arrival was thus delayed till the news of Queen Mary’s death freed him from further danger. He at once returned to Houghton, and there he continued to labour till his death on the 4th of March 1583. When the Roman Catholic bishops were deprived he was offered the see of Carlisle; but he declined this honour and also the provostship of Queen’s, which was offered him in 1560. At Houghton his course of life was a ceaseless round of benevolent activity. In June 1560 he entertained Cecil and Dr Nicholas Wotton on their way to Edinburgh. His hospitable manner of living was the admiration of all. His living was a comparatively rich one, his house was better than many bishops’ palaces, and his position was that of a clerical magnate. In his household he spent “every fortnight 40 bushels of corn, 20 bushels of malt and an ox, besides a proportional quantity of other kinds of provisions.” Strangers and travellers found a ready reception; and even their horses were treated with so much care that it was humorously said that, if one were turned loose in any part of the country, it would immediately make its way to the rector of Houghton. Every Sunday from Michaelmas till Easter was a public day with Gilpin. For the reception of his parishioners he had three tables well covered—one for gentlemen, the second for husbandmen, the third for day-labourers; and this piece of hospitality he never omitted, even when losses or scarcity made its continuance difficult. He built and endowed a grammar-school at a cost of upwards of £500, educated and maintained a large number of poor children at his own charge, and provided the more promising pupils with means of studying at the universities. So many young people, indeed, flocked to his school that there was not accommodation for them in Houghton, and he had to fit up part of his house as a boarding establishment. Grieved at the ignorance and superstition which the remissness of the clergy permitted to flourish in the neighbouring parishes, he used every year to visit the most neglected parts of Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Westmorland and Cumberland; and that his own flock might not suffer, he was at the expense of a constant assistant. Among his parishioners he was looked up to as a judge, and did great service in preventing law-suits amongst them. If an industrious man suffered a loss, he delighted to make it good; if the harvest was bad, he was liberal in the remission of tithes. The boldness which he could display at need is well illustrated by his action in regard to duelling. Finding one day a challenge-glove stuck up on the door of a church where he was to preach, he took it down with his own hand, and proceeded to the pulpit to inveigh against the unchristian custom. His theological position was not in accord with any of 26 the religious parties of his age, and Gladstone thought that the catholicity of the Anglican Church was better exemplified in his career than in those of more prominent ecclesiastics (pref. to A. W. Hutton’s edition of S. R. Maitland’s Essays on the Reformation). He was not satisfied with the Elizabethan settlement, had great respect for the Fathers, and was with difficulty induced to subscribe. Archbishop Sandys’ views on the Eucharist horrified him; but on the other hand he maintained friendly relations with Bishop Pilkington and Thomas Lever, and the Puritans had some hope of his support.

GILSONITE (so named after S. H. Gilson of Salt Lake City), or Uintahite, or Uintaite, a description of asphalt occurring in masses several inches in diameter in the Uinta (or Uintah) valley, near Fort Duchesne, Utah. It is of black colour; its fracture is conchoidal, and it has a lustrous surface. When warmed it becomes plastic, and on further beating fuses perfectly. It has a specific gravity of 1.065 to 1.070. It dissolves freely in hot oil of turpentine. The output amounted to 10,916 short tons for the year 1905, and the value was $4.51 per ton.

GILYAKS, a hybrid people, originally widespread throughout the Lower Amur district, but now confined to the Amur delta and the north of Sakhalin. They have been affiliated by some authorities to the Ainu of Sakhalin and Yezo; but they are more probably a mongrel people, and Dr A. Anuchin states that there are two types, a Mongoloid with sparse beard, high cheek-bones and flat face, and a Caucasic with bushy beard and more regular features. The Chinese call them Yupitatse, “Fish-skin-clad people,” from their wearing a peculiar dress made from salmon skin.

GIMBAL, a mechanical device for hanging some object so that it should keep a horizontal and constant position, while the body from which it is suspended is in free motion, so that the motion of the supporting body is not communicated to it. It is thus used particularly for the suspension of compasses or chronometers and lamps at sea, and usually consists of a ring freely moving on an axis, within which the object swings on an axis at right angles to the ring.

The word is derived from the O. Fr. gemel, from Lat. gemellus, diminutive of geminus, a twin, and appears also in gimmel or jimbel and as gemel, especially as a term for a ring formed of two hoops linked together and capable of separation, used in the 16th and 17th centuries as betrothal and keepsake rings. They sometimes were made of three or more hoops linked together.

GIMLET (from the O. Fr. guimbelet, probably a diminutive of the O.E. wimble, and the Scandinavian wammle, to bore or twist; the modern French is gibelet), a tool used for boring small holes. It is made of steel, with a shaft having a hollow side, and a screw at the end for boring the wood; the handle of wood is fixed transversely to the shaft. A gimlet is always a small tool. A similar tool of large size is called an “auger” (see Tool).

GIMLI, in Scandinavian mythology, the great hall of heaven whither the righteous will go to spend eternity.

GIMP, or Gymp. (1) (Of somewhat doubtful origin, but probably a nasal form of the Fr. guipure, from guiper, to cover or “whip” a cord over with silk), a stiff trimming made of silk or cotton woven around a firm cord, often further ornamented by a metal cord running through it. It is also sometimes covered with bugles, beads or other glistening ornaments. The trimming employed by upholsterers to edge curtains, draperies, the seats of chairs, &c., is also called gimp; and in lace work it is the firmer or coarser thread which outlines the pattern and strengthens the material. (2) A shortened form of gimple (the O. E. wimple), the kerchief worn by a nun around her throat, sometimes also applied to a nun’s stomacher.

GIN, an aromatized or compounded potable spirit, the characteristic flavour of which is derived from the juniper berry. The word “gin” is an abbreviation of Geneva, both being primarily derived from the Fr. genièvre (juniper). The use of the juniper for flavouring alcoholic beverages may be traced to the invention, or perfecting, by Count de Morret, son of Henry IV. of France, of juniper wine. It was the custom in the early days of the spirit industry, in distilling spirit from fermented liquors, to add in the working some aromatic ingredients, such as ginger, grains of paradise, &c., to take off the nauseous flavour of the crude spirits then made. The invention of juniper wine, no doubt, led some one to try the juniper berry for this purpose, and as this flavouring agent was found not only to yield an agreeable beverage, but also to impart a valuable medicinal quality to the spirit, it was generally made use of by makers of aromatized spirits thereafter. It is probable that the use of grains of paradise, pepper and so on, in the early days of spirit manufacture, for the object mentioned above, indirectly gave rise to the statements which are still found in current text-books and works of reference as to the use of Cayenne pepper, cocculus indicus, sulphuric acid and so on, for the purpose of adulterating spirits. It is quite certain that such materials are not used nowadays, and it would indeed, in view of modern conditions of manufacture and of public taste, be hard to find a reason for their use. The same applies to the suggestions that such substances as acetate of lead, alum or sulphate of zinc are employed for the fining of gin.

There are two distinct types of gin, namely, the Dutch geneva or hollands and the British gin. Each of these types exists in the shape of numerous sub-varieties. Broadly speaking, British gin is prepared with a highly rectified spirit, whereas in the manufacture of Dutch gin a preliminary rectification is not an integral part of the process. The old-fashioned Hollands is prepared much after the following fashion. A mash consisting of about one-third of malted barley or bere and two-thirds rye-meal is prepared, and infused at a somewhat high temperature. After cooling, the whole is set to ferment with a small quantity of yeast. After two to three days the attenuation is complete, and the wash so obtained is distilled, and the resulting distillate (the low wines) is redistilled, with the addition of the flavouring matter (juniper berries, &c.) and a little salt. Originally the juniper berries were ground with the malt, but this practice no longer obtains, but some distillers, it is believed, still mix the juniper berries with the wort and subject the whole to fermentation. When the redistillation over juniper is repeated, the product is termed double (geneva, &c.). There are numerous variations in the process described, wheat being frequently employed in lieu of rye. In the manufacture of British gin,1 a highly rectified spirit (see Spirits) is redistilled in the presence of the flavouring matter (principally juniper and coriander), and frequently this operation is repeated several times. The product so obtained constitutes the “dry” gin of commerce. Sweetened or cordialized gin is obtained by adding sugar and 27 flavouring matter (juniper, coriander, angelica, &c.) to the dry variety. Inferior qualities of gin are made by simply adding essential oils to plain spirit, the distillation process being omitted. The essential oil of juniper is a powerful diuretic, and gin is frequently prescribed in affections of the urinary organs.

GINDELY, ANTON (1829-1892), German historian, was the son of a German father and a Slavonic mother, and was born at Prague on the 3rd of September 1829. He studied at Prague and at Olmütz, and, after travelling extensively in search of historical material, became professor of history at the university of Prague and archivist for Bohemia in 1862. He died at Prague on the 24th of October 1892. Gindely’s chief work is his Geschichte des dreissigjährigen Krieges (Prague, 1869-1880), which has been translated into English (New York, 1884); and his historical work is mainly concerned with the period of the Thirty Years’ War. Perhaps the most important of his numerous other works are: Geschichte der böhmischen Brüder (Prague, 1857-1858); Rudolf II. und seine Zeit (1862-1868), and a criticism of Wallenstein, Waldstein während seines ersten Generalats (1886). He wrote a history of Bethlen Gabor in Hungarian, and edited the Monumenta historiae Bohemica. Gindely’s posthumous work, Geschichte der Gegenreformation in Böhmen, was edited by T. Tupetz (1894).

GINGALL, or Jingal (Hindostani janjal), a gun used by the natives throughout the East, usually a light piece mounted on a swivel; it sometimes takes the form of a heavy musket fired from a rest.

GINGER (Fr. gingembre, Ger. Ingwer), the rhizome or underground stem of Zingiber officinale (nat. ord. Zingiberaceae), a perennial reed-like plant growing from 3 to 4 ft. high. The flowers and leaves are borne on separate stems, those of the former being shorter than those of the latter, and averaging from 6 to 12 in. The flowers themselves are borne at the apex of the stems in dense ovate-oblong cone-like spikes from 2 to 3 in. long, composed of obtuse strongly-imbricated bracts with membranous margins, each bract enclosing a single small sessile flower. The leaves are alternate and arranged in two rows, bright green, smooth, tapering at both ends, with very short stalks and long sheaths which stand away from the stem and end in two small rounded auricles. The plant rarely flowers and the fruit is unknown. Though not found in a wild state, it is considered with very good reason to be a native of the warmer parts of Asia, over which it has been cultivated from an early period and the rhizome imported into England. From Asia the plant has spread into the West Indies, South America, western tropical Africa, and Australia. It is commonly grown in botanic gardens in Britain.

The use of ginger as a spice has been known from very early times; it was supposed by the Greeks and Romans to be a product of southern Arabia, and was received by them by way of the Red Sea; in India it has also been known from a very remote period, the Greek and Latin names being derived from the Sanskrit. Flückiger and Hanbury, in their Pharmacographia, give the following notes on the history of ginger. On the authority of Vincent’s Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients, it is stated that in the list of imports from the Red Sea into Alexandria, which in the second century of our era were there liable to the Roman fiscal duty, ginger occurs among other Indian spices. So frequent is the mention of ginger in similar lists during the middle ages, that it evidently constituted an important item in the commerce between Europe and the East. It thus appears in the tariff of duties levied at Acre in Palestine about 1173, in that of Barcelona in 1221, Marseilles in 1228 and Paris in 1296. Ginger seems to have been well known in England even before the Norman Conquest, being often referred to in the Anglo-Saxon leech-books of the 11th century. It was very common in the 13th and 14th centuries, ranking next in value to pepper, which was then the commonest of all spices, and costing on an average about 1s. 7d. per ℔. Three kinds of ginger were known among the merchants of Italy about the middle of the 14th century: (1) Belledi or Baladi, an Arabic name, which, as applied to ginger, would signify country or wild, and denotes common ginger; (2) Colombino, which refers to Columbum, Kolam or Quilon, a port in Travancore, frequently mentioned in the middle ages; and (3) Micchino, a name which denoted that the spice had been brought from or by way of Mecca. Marco Polo seems to have seen the ginger plant both in India and China between 1280 and 1290. John of Montecorvino, a missionary friar who visited India about 1292, gives a description of the plant, and refers to the fact of the root being dug up and transported. Nicolo di Conto, a Venetian merchant in the early part of the 15th century, also describes the plant and the collection of the root, as seen by him in India. Though the Venetians received ginger by way of Egypt, some of the superior kinds were taken from India overland by the Black Sea. The spice is said to have been introduced into America by Francisco de Mendoça, who took it from the East Indies to New Spain. It seems to have been shipped for commercial purposes from San Domingo as early as 1585, and from Barbados in 1654; so early as 1547 considerable quantities were sent from the West Indies to Spain.

Ginger is known in commerce in two distinct forms, termed respectively coated and uncoated ginger, as having or wanting the epidermis. For the first, the pieces, which are called “races” or “hands,” from their irregular palmate form, are washed and simply dried in the sun. In this form ginger presents a brown, more or less irregularly wrinkled or striated surface, and when broken shows a dark brownish fracture, hard, and sometimes horny and resinous. To produce uncoated ginger the rhizomes are washed, scraped and sun-dried, and are often subjected to a system of bleaching, either from the fumes of burning sulphur or by immersion for a short time in a solution of chlorinated lime. The whitewashed appearance that much of the ginger has, as seen in the shops, is due to the fact of its being washed in whiting and water, or even coated with sulphate of 28 lime. This artificial coating is supposed by some to give the ginger a better appearance; it often, however, covers an inferior quality, and can readily be detected by the ease with which it rubs off, or by its leaving a white powdery substance at the bottom of the jar in which it is contained. Uncoated ginger, as seen in trade, varies from single joints an inch or less in length to flattish irregularly branched pieces of several joints, the “races” or “hands,” and from 3 to 4 in. long; each branch has a depression at its summit showing the former attachment of a leafy stem. The colour, when not whitewashed, is a pale buff; it is somewhat rough or fibrous, breaking with a short mealy fracture, and presenting on the surfaces of the broken parts numerous short bristly fibres.

GINGHAM, a cotton or linen cloth, for the name of which several origins are suggested. It is said to have been made at Guingamp, a town in Brittany; the New English Dictionary derives the word from Malay ging-gang, meaning “striped.” The cloth is now of a light or medium weight, and woven of dyed or white yarns either in a single colour or different colours, and in stripes, checks or plaids. It is made in Lancashire and in Glasgow, and also to a large extent in the United States. Imitations of it are obtained by calico-printing. It is used for dresses, &c.

GINGI, or Gingee, a rock fortress of southern India, in the South Arcot district of Madras. It consists of three hills, connected by walls enclosing an area of 7 sq. m., and practically impregnable to assault. The origin of the fortress is shrouded in legend. When occupied by the Mahrattas at the end of the 17th century, it withstood a siege of eight years against the armies of Aurangzeb. In 1750 it was captured by the French, who held it with a strong force for eleven years. It surrendered to the English in 1761, in the words of Orme, “terminated the long hostilities between the two rival European powers in Coromandel, and left not a single ensign of the French nation avowed by the authority of its government in any part of India.”

GINGUENÉ, PIERRE LOUIS (1748-1815), French author, was born on the 27th of April 1748 at Rennes, in Brittany. He was educated at a Jesuit college in his native town, and came to Paris in 1772. He wrote criticisms for the Mercure de France, and composed a comic opera, Pomponin (1777). The Satire des satires (1778) and the Confession de Zulmé (1779) followed. The Confession was claimed by six or seven different authors, and though the value of the piece is not very great, it obtained great success. His defence of Piccini against the partisans of Gluck made him still more widely known. He hailed the first symptoms of the Revolution, joined Giuseppe Cerutti, the author of the Mémoire pour le peuple français (1788), and others in producing the Feuille villageoise, a weekly paper addressed to the villages of France. He also celebrated in an indifferent ode the opening of the states-general. In his Lettres sur les confessions de J.-J. Rousseau (1791) he defended the life and principles of his author. He was imprisoned during the Terror, and only escaped with life by the downfall of Robespierre. Some time after his release he assisted, as director-general of the “commission exécutive de l’instruction publique,” in reorganizing the system of public instruction, and he was an original member of the Institute of France. In 1797 the directory appointed him minister plenipotentiary to the king of Sardinia. After fulfilling his duties for seven months, very little to the satisfaction of his employers, Ginguené retired for a time to his country house of St Prix, in the valley of Montmorency. He was appointed a member of the tribunate, but Napoleon, finding that he was not sufficiently tractable, had him expelled at the first “purge,” and Ginguené returned to his literary pursuits. He was one of the commission charged to continue the Histoire littéraire de la France, and he contributed to the volumes of this series which appeared in 1814, 1817 and 1820. Ginguené’s most important work is the Histoire littéraire d’Italie (14 vols., 1811-1835). He was putting the finishing touches to the eighth and ninth volumes when he died on the 11th of November 1815. The last five volumes were written by Francesco Salfi and revised by Pierre Daunou.

In the composition of his history of Italian literature he was guided for the most part by the great work of Girolamo Tiraboschi, but he avoids the prejudices and party views of his model.

GINKEL, GODART VAN (1630-1703); 1st earl of Athlone, Dutch general in the service of England, was born at Utrecht in 1630. He came of a noble family, and bore the title of Baron van Reede, being the eldest son of Godart Adrian van Reede, Baron Ginkel. In his youth he entered the Dutch army, and in 1688 he followed William, prince of Orange, in his expedition to England. In the following year he distinguished himself by a memorable exploit—the pursuit, defeat and capture of a Scottish regiment which had mutinied at Ipswich, and was marching northward across the fens. It was the alarm excited by this mutiny that facilitated the passing of the first Mutiny Act. In 1690 Ginkel accompanied William III. to Ireland, and commanded a body of Dutch cavalry at the battle of the Boyne. On the king’s return to England General Ginkel was entrusted with the conduct of the war. He took the field in the spring of 1691, and established his headquarters at Mullingar. Among those who held a command under him was the marquis of Ruvigny, the recognized chief of the Huguenot refugees. Early in June Ginkel took the fortress of Ballymore, capturing the whole garrison of 1000 men. The English lost only 8 men. After reconstructing the fortifications of Ballymore the army marched to Athlone, then one of the most important of the fortified towns of Ireland. The Irish defenders of the place were commanded by a distinguished French general, Saint-Ruth. The firing began on June 19th, and on the 30th the town was stormed, the Irish army retreating towards Galway, and taking up their position at Aughrim. Having strengthened the fortifications of Athlone and left a garrison there, Ginkel led the English, on July 12th, to Aughrim. An immediate attack was resolved on, and, after a severe and at one time doubtful contest, the crisis was precipitated by the fall of Saint-Ruth, and the disorganized Irish were defeated and fled. A horrible slaughter of the Irish followed the struggle, and 4000 corpses were left unburied on the field, besides a multitude of others that lay along the line of the retreat. Galway next capitulated, its garrison being permitted to retire to Limerick. There the viceroy Tyrconnel was in command of a large force, but his sudden death early in August left the command in the hands of General Sarsfield and the Frenchman D’Usson. The English came in sight of the town on the day of Tyrconnel’s death, and the bombardment was immediately begun. Ginkel, by a bold device, crossed the Shannon and captured the camp of the Irish cavalry. A few days later he stormed the fort on Thomond Bridge, and after difficult negotiations a capitulation was signed, the terms of which were divided into a civil and a military treaty. Thus was completed the conquest or pacification of Ireland, and the services of the Dutch general were amply recognized and rewarded. He received the formal thanks of the House of Commons, and was 29 created by the king 1st earl of Athlone and baron of Aughrim. The immense forfeited estates of the earl of Limerick were given to him, but the grant was a few years later revoked by the English parliament. The earl continued to serve in the English army, and accompanied the king to the continent in 1693. He fought at the sieges of Namur and the battle of Neerwinden, and assisted in destroying the French magazine at Givet. In 1702, waiving his own claims to the position of commander-in-chief, he commanded the Dutch serving under the duke of Marlborough. He died at Utrecht on the 11th of February 1703, and was succeeded by his son the 2nd earl (1668-1719), a distinguished soldier in the reigns of William III. and Anne. On the death of the 9th earl without issue in 1844, the title became extinct.

GINSBURG, CHRISTIAN DAVID (1831-  ), Hebrew scholar, was born at Warsaw on the 25th of December 1831. Coming to England shortly after the completion of his education in the Rabbinic College at Warsaw, Dr Ginsburg continued his study of the Hebrew Scriptures, with special attention to the Megilloth. The first result of these studies was a translation of the Song of Songs, with a commentary historical and critical, published in 1857. A similar translation of Ecclesiastes, followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he was preparing the first sections of his magnum opus, the critical study of the Massorah. Beginning in 1867 with the publication of Jacob ben Chajim’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with notices, and the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, in Hebrew, with translation and commentary, Dr Ginsburg took rank as an eminent Hebrew scholar. In 1870 he was appointed one of the first members of the committee for the revision of the English version of the Old Testament. His life-work culminated in the publication of the Massorah, in three volumes folio (1880-1886), followed by the Masoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894), and the elaborate introduction to it (1897). Dr Ginsburg had one predecessor in the field, the learned Jacob ben Chajim, who in 1524-1525 published the second Rabbinic Bible, containing what has ever since been known as the Massorah; but neither were the materials available nor was criticism sufficiently advanced for a complete edition. Dr Ginsburg took up the subject almost where it was left by those early pioneers, and collected portions of the Massorah from the countless MSS. scattered throughout Europe and the East. More recently Dr Ginsburg has published Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (1897 and 1898), and The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Abbreviations (1903), in addition to a critical treatise “on the relationship of the so-called Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text” (1899, for private circulation). In the last-mentioned work he seeks to prove that the St Petersburg Codex, for so many years accepted as the genuine text of the Babylonian school, is in reality a Palestinian text carefully altered so as to render it conformable to the Babylonian recension. He subsequently undertook the preparation of a new edition of the Hebrew Bible for the British and Foreign Bible Society. He also contributed many articles to J. Kitto’s Encyclopaedia, W. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

GINSENG, the root of a species of Panax (P. Ginseng), native of Manchuria and Korea, belonging to the natural order Araliaceae, used in China as a medicine. Other roots are substituted for it, notably that of Panax quinquefolium, distinguished as American ginseng, and imported from the United States. At one time the ginseng obtained from Manchuria was considered to be the finest quality, and in consequence became so scarce that an imperial edict was issued prohibiting its collection. That prepared in Korea is now the most esteemed variety. The root of the wild plant is preferred to that of cultivated ginseng, and the older the plant the better is the quality of the root considered to be. Great care is taken in the preparation of the drug. The account given by Kaempfer of the preparation of nindsin, the root of Sium ninsi, in Korea, will give a good idea of the preparation of ginseng, ninsi being a similar drug of supposed weaker virtue, obtained from a different plant, and often confounded with ginseng. “In the beginning of winter nearly all the population of Sjansai turn out to collect the root, and make preparations for sleeping in the fields. The root, when collected, is macerated for three days in fresh water, or water in which rice has been boiled twice; it is then suspended in a closed vessel over the fire, and afterwards dried, until from the base to the middle it assumes a hard, resinous and translucent appearance, which is considered a proof of its good quality.”

Ginseng of good quality generally occurs in hard, rather brittle, translucent pieces, about the size of the little finger, and varying in length from 2 to 4 in. The taste is mucilaginous, sweetish and slightly bitter and aromatic. The root is frequently forked, and it is probably owing to this circumstance that medicinal properties were in the first place attributed to it, its resemblance to the body of a man being supposed to indicate that it could restore virile power to the aged and impotent. In price it varies from 6 or 12 dollars to the enormous sum of 300 or 400 dollars an ounce.

GIOBERTI, VINCENZO (1801-1852), Italian philosopher, publicist and politician, was born in Turin on the 5th of April 1801. He was educated by the fathers of the Oratory with a view to the priesthood and ordained in 1825. At first he led a very retired life; but gradually took more and more interest in the affairs of his country and the new political ideas as well as in the literature of the day. Partly under the influence of Mazzini, the freedom of Italy became his ruling motive in life,—its emancipation, not only from foreign masters, but from modes of thought alien to its genius, and detrimental to its European authority. This authority was in his mind connected with papal supremacy, though in a way quite novel—intellectual rather than political. This must be remembered in considering nearly all his writings, and also in estimating his position, both in relation to the ruling clerical party—the Jesuits—and also to the politics of the court of Piedmont after the accession of Charles Albert in 1831. He was now noticed by the king and made one of his chaplains. His popularity and private influence, however, were reasons enough for the court party to mark him 30 for exile; he was not one of them, and could not be depended on. Knowing this, he resigned his office in 1833, but was suddenly arrested on a charge of conspiracy, and, after an imprisonment of four months, was banished without a trial. Gioberti first went to Paris, and, a year later, to Brussels, where he remained till 1845, teaching philosophy, and assisting a friend in the work of a private school. He nevertheless found time to write many works of philosophical importance, with special reference to his country and its position. An amnesty having been declared by Charles Albert in 1846, Gioberti (who was again in Paris) was at liberty to return to Italy, but refused to do so till the end of 1847. On his entrance into Turin on the 29th of April 1848 he was received with the greatest enthusiasm. He refused the dignity of senator offered him by Charles Albert, preferring to represent his native town in the Chamber of Deputies, of which he was soon elected president. At the close of the same year, a new ministry was formed, headed by Gioberti; but with the accession of Victor Emmanuel in March 1849, his active life came to an end. For a short time indeed he held a seat in the cabinet, though without a portfolio; but an irreconcilable disagreement soon followed, and his removal from Turin was accomplished by his appointment on a mission to Paris, whence he never returned. There, refusing the pension which had been offered him and all ecclesiastical preferment, he lived frugally, and spent his days and nights as at Brussels in literary labour. He died suddenly, of apoplexy, on the 26th of October 1852.

GIOIOSA-IONICA, a town of Calabria, Italy, in the province of Reggio Calabria, from which it is 65 m. N.E. by rail, and 38 m. direct, 492 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) town, 9072; commune, 11,200. Near the station, which is on the E. coast of Calabria 3 m. below the town to the S.E., the remains of a theatre belonging to the Roman period were discovered in 1883; the orchestra was 46 ft. in diameter (Notizie degli scavi, 1883, p. 423). The ruins of an ancient building called the Naviglio, the nature of which does not seem clear, are described (ib. 1884, p. 252).

GIOJA, MELCHIORRE (1767-1829), Italian writer on philosophy and political economy, was born at Piacenza, on the 20th of September 1767. Originally intended for the church, he took orders, but renounced them in 1796 and went to Milan, where he devoted himself to the study of political economy. Having obtained the prize for an essay on “the kind of free government best adapted to Italy” he decided upon the career of a publicist. The arrival of Napoleon in Italy drew him into public life. He advocated a republic under the dominion of the French in a pamphlet I Tedeschi, i Francesi, ed i Russi in Lombardia, and under the Cisalpine Republic he was named historiographer and director of statistics. He was several times imprisoned, once for eight months in 1820 on a charge of being implicated in a conspiracy with the Carbonari. After the fall of Napoleon he retired into private life, and does not appear to have held office again. He died on the 2nd of January 1829. Gioja’s fundamental idea is the value of statistics or the collection of facts. Philosophy itself is with him classification and consideration of ideas. Logic he regarded as a practical art, and his Esercizioni logici has the further title, Art of deriving benefit from ill-constructed books. In ethics Gioja follows Bentham generally, and his large treatise Del merito e delle recompense (1818) is a clear and systematic view of social ethics from the utilitarian principle. In political economy this avidity for facts produced better fruits. The Nuovo Prospetto delle scienze economiche (1815-1817), although long to excess, and overburdened with classifications and tables, contains much valuable material. The author prefers large properties and large commercial undertakings to small ones, and strongly favours association as a means of production. He defends a restrictive policy and insists on the necessity of the action of the state as a regulating power in the industrial world. He was an opponent of ecclesiastical domination. He must be credited with the finest and most original treatment of division of labour since the Wealth of Nations. Much of what Babbage taught later on the subject of combined work is anticipated by Gioja. His theory of production is also deserving of attention from the fact that it takes into account and gives due prominence to immaterial goods. Throughout the work there is continuous opposition to Adam Smith. Gioja’s latest work Filosofia della statistica (2 vols., 1826; 4 vols., 1829-1830) contains in brief compass the essence of his ideas on human life, and affords the clearest insight into his aim and method in philosophy both theoretical and practical.

GIOLITTI, GIOVANNI (1842-  ), Italian statesman, was born at Mondovì on the 27th of October 1842. After a rapid career in the financial administration he was, in 1882, appointed councillor of state and elected to parliament. As deputy he chiefly acquired prominence by attacks on Magliani, treasury minister in the Depretis cabinet, and on the 9th of March 1889 was himself selected as treasury minister by Crispi. On the fall of the Rudinì cabinet in May 1892, Giolitti, with the help of a court clique, succeeded to the premiership. His term of office was marked by misfortune and misgovernment. The building crisis and the commercial rupture with France had impaired the situation of the state banks, of which one, the Banca Romana, had been further undermined by maladministration. A bank law, passed by Giolitti failed to effect an improvement. Moreover, he irritated public opinion by raising to senatorial rank the director-general of the Banca Romana, Signor Tanlongo, whose irregular practices had become a byword. The senate declined to admit Tanlongo, whom Giolitti, in consequence of an interpellation in parliament upon the condition of the Banca Romana, was obliged to arrest and prosecute. During the prosecution Giolitti abused his position as premier to abstract documents bearing on the case. Simultaneously a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigated the condition of the state banks. Its report, though acquitting Giolitti of personal dishonesty, proved disastrous to his political position, and obliged him to resign. His fall left the finances of the state disorganized, the pensions fund depleted, diplomatic relations with France strained in consequence of the massacre of Italian workmen at Aigues-Mortes, and Sicily and the Lunigiana in a state of revolt, which he had proved impotent to suppress. After his resignation he was impeached for abuse of power as minister, but the supreme court quashed the impeachment by denying the competence of the ordinary tribunals to judge ministerial acts. For several years he was compelled to play a passive part, having lost all credit. But by keeping in the background and giving public opinion time to forget his past, as well as by parliamentary intrigue, he gradually regained much of his former influence. He made capital of the Socialist agitation and of the repression to which other statesmen resorted, and gave the agitators to understand that were he premier they would be allowed a free hand. Thus he gained their favour, and on the fall of the Pelloux cabinet he became minister of the Interior in Zanardelli’s administration, of which he was the real head. His policy of never interfering in strikes and leaving even violent demonstrations undisturbed at first proved successful, but indiscipline and disorder grew to such a pitch that Zanardelli, already in bad health, resigned, and Giolitti succeeded him as prime minister (November 1903). But during his tenure of office he, too, had to resort to strong measures in repressing some serious disorders in various parts of Italy, and thus he lost the favour of the Socialists. In March 1905, feeling himself no longer secure, he resigned, indicating Fortis as his successor. When Sonnino became premier in February 1906, Giolitti did not openly oppose him, but his followers did, and Sonnino was defeated in May, Giolitti becoming prime minister once more.

GIORDANO, LUCA (1632-1705), Italian painter, was born in Naples, son of a very indifferent painter, Antonio, who imparted to him the first rudiments of drawing. Nature predestined him for the art, and at the age of eight he painted a cherub into one of his father’s pictures, a feat which was at once noised abroad, and induced the viceroy of Naples to recommend the child to Ribera. His father afterwards took him to Rome, to study under Pietro da Cortona. He acquired the nickname of Luca Fa-presto (Luke Work-fast). One might suppose this nickname to be derived merely from the almost miraculous celerity with which from an early age and throughout his life he handled the brush; but it is said to have had a more express origin. The father, we are told, poverty-stricken and greedy of gain, was perpetually urging his boy to exertion with the phrase, “Luca, fà presto.” The youth obeyed his parent to the letter, and would actually not so much as pause to snatch a hasty meal, but received into his mouth, while he still worked on, the food which his father’s hand supplied. He copied nearly twenty times the “Battle of Constantine” by Julio Romano, and with proportionate frequency several of the great works of Raphael and Michelangelo. His rapidity, which belonged as much to invention as to mere handiwork, and his versatility, which enabled him to imitate other painters deceptively, earned for him two other epithets, “The Thunderbolt” (Fulmine), and “The Proteus,” of Painting. He shortly visited all the main seats of the Italian school of art, and formed for himself a style combining in a certain measure the ornamental pomp of Paul Veronese and the contrasting compositions and large schemes of chiaroscuro of Pietro da Cortona. He was noted also for lively and showy colour. Returning to Naples, and accepting every sort of commission by which money was to be made, he practised his art with so much applause that Charles II. of Spain towards 1687 invited him over to Madrid, where he remained thirteen years. Giordano was very popular at the Spanish court, being a sprightly talker along with his other marvellously facile gifts, and the king created him a cavaliere. One anecdote of his rapidity of work is that the queen of Spain having one day made some inquiry about his wife, he at once showed Her Majesty what the lady was like by painting her portrait into the picture on which he was engaged. Soon after the death of Charles in 1700 Giordano, gorged with wealth, returned to Naples. He spent large sums in acts of munificence, and was particularly liberal to his poorer brethren of the art. He again visited various parts of Italy, and died in Naples on the 12th of January 1705, his last words being “O Napoli, sospiro mio” (O Naples, my heart’s love!). One of his maxims was that the good painter is the one whom the public like, and that the public are attracted more by colour than by design.

Giordano had an astonishing readiness and facility, in spite of the general commonness and superficiality of his performances. He left many works in Rome, and far more in Naples. Of the latter one of the most renowned is “Christ expelling the Traders from the Temple,” in the church of the Padri Girolamini, a colossal work, full of expressive lazzaroni; also the frescoes of S. Martino, and those in the Tesoro della Certosa, including the subject of “Moses and the Brazen Serpent”; and the cupola-paintings in the Church of S. Brigida, which contains the artist’s own tomb. In Spain he executed a surprising number of works,—continuing in the Escorial the series commenced by Cambiasi, and painting frescoes of the “Triumphs of the Church,” the “Genealogy and Life of the Madonna,” the stories of Moses, Gideon, David and Solomon, and the “Celebrated Women of Scripture,” all works of large dimensions. His pupils, Aniello Rossi and Matteo Pacelli, assisted him in Spain. In Madrid he worked more in oil-colour, a Nativity there being one of his best productions. Other superior examples are the “Judgment of Paris” in the Berlin Museum, and “Christ with the Doctors in the Temple,” in the Corsini Gallery of Rome. In Florence, in his closing days, he painted the Cappella Corsini, the Galleria Riccardi and other works. In youth he etched with considerable skill some of his own paintings, such as the “Slaughter of the Priests of Baal.” He also painted much on the crystal borderings of looking-glasses, cabinets, &c., seen in many Italian palaces, and was, in this form of art, the master of Pietro Garofolo. His best pupil, in painting of the ordinary kind, was Paolo de Matteis.

GIORGIONE (1477-1510), Italian painter, was born at Castelfranco in 1477. In contemporary documents he is always called (according to the Venetian manner of pronunciation and spelling) Zorzi, Zorzo or Zorzon of Castelfranco. A tradition, having its origin in the 17th century, represented him as the natural son of some member of the great local family of the Barbarelli, by a peasant girl of the neighbouring village of Vedelago; consequently he is commonly referred to in histories and 32 catalogues under the name of Giorgio Barbarelli or Barbarella. This tradition has, however, on close examination been proved baseless. On the other hand mention has been found in a contemporary document of an earlier Zorzon, a native of Vedelago, living in Castelfranco in 1460. Vasari, who wrote before the Barbarella legend had sprung up, says that Giorgione was of very humble origin. It seems probable that he was simply the son or grandson of the afore-mentioned Zorzon the elder; that the after-claim of the Barbarelli to kindred with him was a mere piece of family vanity, very likely suggested by the analogous case of Leonardo da Vinci; and that, this claim once put abroad, the peasant-mother of Vedelago was invented on the ground of some dim knowledge that his real progenitors came from that village.

Of the facts of his life we are almost as meagrely informed as of the circumstances of his birth. The little city, or large fortified village, for it is scarcely more, of Castelfranco in the Trevisan stands in the midst of a rich and broken plain at some distance from the last spurs of the Venetian Alps. From the natural surroundings of Giorgione’s childhood was no doubt derived his ideal of pastoral scenery, the country of pleasant copses, glades, brooks and hills amid which his personages love to wander or recline with lute and pipe. How early in boyhood he went to Venice we do not know, but internal evidence supports the statement of Ridolfi that he served his apprenticeship there under Giovanni Bellini; and there he made his fame and had his home. That his gifts were early recognized we know from the facts, recorded in contemporary documents, that in 1500, when he was only twenty-three (that is if Vasari gives rightly the age at which he died), he was chosen to paint portraits of the Doge Agostino Barberigo and the condottiere Consalvo Ferrante; that in 1504 he was commissioned to paint an altarpiece in memory of Matteo Costanzo in the cathedral of his native town, Castelfranco; that in 1507 he received at the order of the Council of Ten part payment for a picture (subject not mentioned) on which he was engaged for the Hall of the Audience in the ducal palace; and that in 1507-1508 he was employed, with other artists of his own generation, to decorate with frescoes the exterior of the newly rebuilt Fondaco dei Tedeschi or German merchants’ hall at Venice, having already done similar work on the exterior of the Casa Soranzo, the Casa Grimani alii Servi and other Venetian palaces. Vasari gives also as an important event in Giorgione’s life, and one which had influence on his work, his meeting with Leonardo da Vinci on the occasion of the Tuscan master’s visit to Venice in 1500. In September or October 1510 he died of the plague then raging in the city, and within a few days of his death we find the great art-patroness and amateur, Isabella d’Este, writing from Mantua and trying in vain to secure for her collection a night-piece by his hand of which the fame had reached her.

All accounts agree in representing Giorgione as a personage of distinguished and romantic charm, a great lover, a great musician, made to enjoy in life and to express in art to the uttermost the delight, the splendour, the sensuous and imaginative grace and fulness, not untinged with poetic melancholy, of the Venetian existence of his time. They represent him further as having made in Venetian painting an advance analogous to that made in Tuscan painting by Leonardo more than twenty years before; that is as having released the art from the last shackles of archaic rigidity and placed it in possession of full freedom and the full mastery of its means. He also introduced a new range of subjects. Besides altarpieces and portraits he painted pictures that told no story, whether biblical or classical, or if they professed to tell such, neglected the action and simply embodied in form and colour moods of lyrical or romantic feeling, much as a musician might embody them in sounds. Innovating with the courage and felicity of genius, he had for a time an overwhelming influence on his contemporaries and immediate successors in the Venetian school, including Titian, Sebastian del Piombo, the elder Palma, Cariani and the two Campagnolas, and not a little even on seniors of long-standing fame such as Giovanni Bellini. His name and work have exercised, and continue to exercise, no less a spell on posterity. But to identify and define, among the relics of his age and school, precisely what that work is, and to distinguish it from the kindred work of other men whom his influence inspired, is a very difficult matter. There are inclusive critics who still claim for Giorgione nearly every painting of the time that at all resembles his manner, and there are exclusive critics who pare down to some ten or a dozen the list of extant pictures which they will admit to be actually his.

To name first those which are either certain or command the most general acceptance, placing them in something like an approximate and probable order of date. In the Uffizi at Florence are two companion pieces of the “Trial of Moses” and the “Judgment of Solomon,” the latter the finer and better preserved of the two, which pass, no doubt justly, as typical works of Giorgione’s youth, and exhibit, though not yet ripely, his special qualities of colour-richness and landscape romance, the peculiar facial types of his predilection, with the pure form of forehead, fine oval of cheek, and somewhat close-set eyes and eyebrows, and the intensity of that still and brooding sentiment with which, rather than with dramatic life and movement, he instinctively invests his figures. Probably the earliest of the portraits by common consent called his is the beautiful one of a young man at Berlin. His earliest devotional picture would seem to be the highly finished “Christ bearing his Cross” (the head and shoulders only, with a peculiarly serene and high-bred cast of features) formerly at Vicenza and now in the collection of Mrs Gardner at Boston. Other versions of this picture exist, and it has been claimed that one in private possession at Vienna is the true original: erroneously in the judgment of the present writer. Another “Christ bearing the Cross,” with a Jew dragging at the rope round his neck, in the church of San Rocco at Venice, is a ruined but genuine work, quoted by Vasari and Ridolfi, and copied with the name of Giorgione appended, by Van Dyck in that master’s Chatsworth sketch-book. (Vasari gives it to Giorgione in his first and to Titian in his second edition.) The composition of a lost early picture of the birth of Paris is preserved in an engraving of the “Teniers Gallery” series, and an old copy of part of the same picture is at Budapest. In the Giovanelli Palace at Venice is that fascinating and enigmatical mythology or allegory, known to the Anonimo Morelliano, who saw it in 1530 in the house of Gabriel Vendramin, simply as “the small landscape with the storm, the gipsy woman and the soldier”; the picture is conjecturally interpreted by modern authorities as illustrating a passage in Statius which describes the meeting of Adrastus with Hypsipyle when she was serving as nurse with the king of Nemea. Still belonging to the earlier part of the painter’s brief career is a beautiful, virginally pensive Judith at St Petersburg, which passed under various alien names, as Raphael, Moretto, &c., until its kindred with the unquestioned work of Giorgione was in late years firmly established. The great Castelfranco altarpiece, still, in spite of many restorations, one of the most classically pure and radiantly impressive works of Renaissance painting, may be taken as closing the earlier phase of the young master’s work (1504). It shows the Virgin loftily enthroned on a plain, sparely draped stone structure with St Francis and a warrior saint (St Liberale) standing in attitudes of great simplicity on either side of the foot of the throne, a high parapet behind them, and a beautiful landscape of the master’s usual type seen above it. Nearly akin to this masterpiece, not in shape or composition but by the type of the Virgin and the very Bellinesque St Francis, is the altarpiece of the Madonna with St Francis and St Roch at Madrid. Of the master’s fully ripened time is the fine and again enigmatical picture formerly in the house of Taddeo Contarini at Venice, described by contemporary witnesses as the “Three Philosophers,” and now, on slender enough grounds, supposed to represent Evander showing Aeneas the site of Troy as narrated in the eighth Aeneid. The portrait of a knight of Malta in the Uffizi at Florence has more power and authority, if less sentiment, than the earlier example at Berlin, and may be taken to be of the 33 master’s middle time. Most entirely central and typical of all Giorgione’s extant works is the Sleeping Venus at Dresden, first recognized by Morelli, and now universally accepted, as being the same as the picture seen by the Anonimo and later by Ridolfi in the Casa Marcello at Venice. An exquisitely pure and severe rhythm of line and contour chastens the sensuous richness of the presentment: the sweep of white drapery on which the goddess lies, and of glowing landscape that fills the space behind her, most harmoniously frame her divinity. It is recorded that the master left this piece unfinished and that the landscape, with a Cupid which subsequent restoration has removed, were completed after his death by Titian. The picture is the prototype of Titian’s own Venus at the Uffizi and of many more by other painters of the school; but none of them attained the quality of the first exemplar. Of such small scenes of mixed classical mythology and landscape as early writers attribute in considerable number to Giorgione, there have survived at least two which bear strong evidences of his handiwork, though the action is in both of unwonted liveliness, namely the Apollo and Daphne of the Seminario at Venice and the Orpheus and Eurydice of Bergamo. The portrait of Antonio Grocardo at Budapest represents his fullest and most penetrating power in that branch of art. In his last years the purity and relative slenderness of form which mark his earlier female nudes, including the Dresden Venus, gave way to ideals of ampler mould, more nearly approaching those of Titian and his successors in Venetian art; as is proved by those last remaining fragments of the frescoes on the Grand Canal front of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi which were seen and engraved by Zanetti in 1760, but have now totally disappeared. Such change of ideal is apparent enough in the famous “Concert” or “Pastoral Symphony” of the Louvre, probably the latest, and certainly one of the most characteristic and harmoniously splendid, of Giorgione’s creations that has come down to us, and has caused some critics too hastily to doubt its authenticity.

We pass now to pictures for which some affirm and others deny the right to bear Giorgione’s name. As youthful in style as the two early pictures in the Uffizi, and closely allied to them in feeling, though less so in colour, is an unexplained subject in the National Gallery, sometimes called for want of a better title the “Golden Age”; this is officially and by many critics given only to the “school of” Giorgione, but may not unreasonably be claimed for his own work (No. 1173). There is also in England a group of three paintings which are certainly by one hand, and that a hand very closely related to Giorgione if not actually his own, namely the small oblong “Adoration of the Magi” in the National Gallery (No. 1160), the “Adoration of the Shepherds” belonging to Lord Allendale (with its somewhat inferior but still attractive replica at Vienna), and the small “Holy Family” in the collection of Mr R. H. Benson. The type of the Madonna in all these three pieces is different from that customary with the master, but there seems no reason why he should not at some particular moment have changed his model. The sentiment and gestures of the figures, the cast of draperies, the technical handling, and especially, in Lord Allendale’s picture, the romantic richness of the landscape, all incline us to accept the group as original, notwithstanding the deviation of type already mentioned and certain weaknesses of drawing and proportion which we should have hardly looked for. Better known to European students in general are the two fine pictures commonly given to the master at the Pitti gallery in Florence, namely the “Three Ages” and the “Concert.” Both are very Giorgionesque, the “Three Ages” leaning rather towards the early manner of Lorenzo Lotto, to whom by some critics it is actually given. The “Concert” is held on technical grounds by some of the best judges rather to bear the character of Titian at the moment when the inspiration of Giorgione was strongest on him, at least so far as concerns the extremely beautiful and expressive central figure of the monk playing on the clavichord with reverted head, a very incarnation of musical rapture and yearning—the other figures are too much injured to judge.

There are at least two famous single portraits as to which critics will probably never agree whether they are among the later works of Giorgione or among the earliest of Titian under his influence: these are the jovial and splendid half-length of Catherine Cornaro (or a stout lady much resembling her) with a bas-relief, in the collection of Signor Crespi at Milan, and the so-called “Ariosto” from Lord Darnley’s collection acquired for the National Gallery in 1904. Ancient and half-effaced inscriptions, of which there is no cause to doubt the genuineness, ascribe them both to Titian; both, to the mind of the present writer at least, are more nearly akin to such undoubted early Titians as the “Man with the Book” at Hampton Court and the “Man with the Glove” at the Louvre than to any authenticated work of Giorgione. At the same time it should be remembered that Giorgione is known to have actually enjoyed the patronage of Catherine Cornaro and to have painted her portrait. The Giorgionesque influence and feeling, to a degree almost of sentimental exaggeration, encounter us again in another beautiful Venetian portrait at the National Gallery which has sometimes been claimed for him, that of a man in crimson velvet with white pleated shirt and a background of bays, long attributed to the elder Palma (No. 636). The same qualities are present with more virility in a very striking portrait of a young man at Temple Newsam, which stands indeed nearer than any other extant example to the Brocardo portrait at Budapest. The full-face portrait of a woman in the Borghese gallery at Rome has the marks of the master’s design and inspiration, but in its present sadly damaged condition can hardly be claimed for his handiwork. The head of a boy with a pipe at Hampton Court, a little over life size, has been enthusiastically claimed as Giorgione’s workmanship, but is surely too slack and soft in handling to be anything more than an early copy of a lost work, analogous to, though better than, the similar copy at Vienna of a young man with an arrow, a subject he is known to have painted. The early records prove indeed that not a few such copies of Giorgione’s more admired works were produced in his own time or shortly afterwards. One of the most interesting and unmistakable such copies still extant is the picture formerly in the Manfrin collection at Venice, afterwards in that of Mr Barker in London, and now at Dresden, which is commonly called “The Horoscope,” and represents a woman seated near a classic ruin with a young child at her feet, an armed youth standing looking down at them, and a turbaned sage seated near with compasses, disk and book. Of important subject pictures belonging to the debatable borderland between Giorgione and his imitators are the large and interesting unfinished “Judgment of Solomon” at Kingston Lacy, which must certainly be the same that Ridolfi saw and attributed to him in the Casa Grimani at Venice, but has weaknesses of design and drawing sufficiently baffling to criticism; and the “Woman taken in Adultery” in the public gallery at Glasgow, a picture truly Giorgionesque in richness of colour, but betraying in its awkward composition, the relative coarseness of its types and the insincere, mechanical animation of its movements, the hand of some lesser master of the school, almost certainly (by comparison with his existing engravings and woodcuts) that of Domenico Campagnola. It seems unnecessary to refer, in the present notice, to any of the numerous other and inferior works which have been claimed for Giorgione by a criticism unable to distinguish between a living voice and its echoes.

GIOTTINO (1324-1357), an early Florentine painter. Vasari is the principal authority in regard to this artist; but it is not by any means easy to bring the details of his narrative into harmony with such facts as can now be verified. It would appear that there was a painter of the name of Tommaso (or Maso) di Stefano 34 termed Giottino; and the Giottino of Vasari is said to have been born in 1324, and to have died early, of consumption, in 1357,—dates which must be regarded as open to considerable doubt. Stefano, the father of Tommaso, was himself a celebrated painter in the early revival of art; his naturalism was indeed so highly appreciated by contemporaries as to earn him the appellation of “Scimia della Natura” (ape of nature). He, it seems, instructed his son, who, however, applied himself with greater predilection to studying the works of the great Giotto, formed his style on these, and hence was called Giottino. It is even said that Giottino was really the son (others say the great-grandson) of Giotto. To this statement little or no importance can be attached. To Maso di Stefano, or Giottino, Vasari and Ghiberti attribute the frescoes in the chapel of S. Silvestro (or of the Bardi family) in the Florentine church of S. Croce; these represent the miracles of Pope S. Silvestro as narrated in the “Golden Legend,” one conspicuous subject being the sealing of the lips of a malignant dragon. These works are animated and firm in drawing, with naturalism carried further than by Giotto. From the evidence of style, some modern connoisseurs assign to the same hand the paintings in the funeral vault of the Strozzi family, below the Cappella degli Spagnuoli in the church of S. Maria Novella, representing the crucifixion and other subjects. Vasari ascribes also to his Giottino the frescoes of the life of St Nicholas in the lower church of Assisi. This series, however, is not really in that part of the church which Vasari designates, but is in the chapel of the Sacrament; and the works in that chapel are understood to be by Giotto di Stefano, who worked in the second half of the 14th century—very excellent productions of their period. They are much damaged, and the style is hardly similar to that of the Sylvester frescoes. It might hence be inferred that two different men produced the works which are unitedly fathered upon the half-legendary “Giottino,” the consumptive youth, solitary and melancholic, but passionately devoted to his art. A large number of other works have been attributed to the same hand; we need only mention an “Apparition of the Virgin to St Bernard,” in the Florentine Academy; a lost painting, very popular in its day, commemorating the expulsion, which took place in 1343, of the duke of Athens from Florence; and a marble statue erected on the Florentine campanile. Vasari particularly praises Giottino for well-blended chiaroscuro.

GIOTTO [Giotto di Bondone1] (1267?-1337), Italian painter, was born at Vespignano in the Mugello, a few miles north of Florence, according to one account in 1276, and according to another, which from the few known circumstances of his life seems more likely to be correct, in 1266 or 1267. His father was a landowner at Colle in the commune of Vespignano, described in a contemporary document as vir praeclarus, but by biographers both early and late as a poor peasant; probably therefore a peasant proprietor of no large possessions but of reputable stock and descent. It is impossible to tell whether there is any truth in the legend of Giotto’s boyhood which relates how he first showed his disposition for art, and attracted the attention of Cimabue, by being found drawing one of his father’s sheep with a sharp stone on the face of a smooth stone or slate. With his father’s consent, the story goes on, Cimabue carried off the boy to be his apprentice, and it was under Cimabue’s tuition that Giotto took his first steps in the art of which he was afterwards to be the great emancipator and renovator. The place where these early steps can still, according to tradition, be traced, is in the first and second, reckoning downwards, of the three courses of frescoes which adorn the walls of the nave in the Upper Church of St Francis at Assisi. These frescoes represent subjects of the Old and New Testament, and great labour, too probably futile, has been spent in trying to pick out those in which the youthful handiwork of Giotto can be discerned, as it is imagined, among that of Cimabue and his other pupils. But the truth is that the figure of Cimabue himself, in spite of Dante’s testimony to his having been the foremost painter of Italy until Giotto arose, has under the search-light of modern criticism melted into almost mythical vagueness. His accepted position as Giotto’s instructor and the pioneer of reform in his art has been attacked from several sides as a mere invention of Florentine writers for the glorification of their own city. One group of critics maintain that the real advance in Tuscan painting before Giotto was the work of the Sienese school and not of the Florentine. Another group contend that the best painting done in Italy down to the last decade of the 13th century was not done by Tuscan hands at all, but by Roman craftsmen trained in the inherited principles of Italo-Byzantine decoration in mosaic and fresco, and that from such Roman craftsmen alone could Giotto have learnt anything worth his learning. The debate thus opened is far from closed, and considering how scanty, ambiguous and often defaced are the materials existing for discussion, it is perhaps never likely to be closed. But there is no debate as to the general nature of the reform effected by the genius of Giotto himself. He was the great humanizer of painting; it is his glory to have been the first among his countrymen to breathe life into wall-pictures and altar-pieces, and to quicken the dead conventionalism of inherited practice with the fire of natural action and natural feeling. Upon yet another point there is no question; and that is that the reform thus effected by Giotto in painting had been anticipated in the sister art of sculpture by nearly a whole generation. About the middle of the 13th century Nicola Pisano had renewed that art, first by strict imitation of classical models, and later by infusing into his work a fresh spirit of nature and humanity, perhaps partly caught from the Gothic schools of France. His son Giovanni had carried the same re-vitalising of sculpture a great deal further; and hence to some critics it would seem that the real inspirer and precursor of Giotto was Giovanni Pisano the sculptor, and not any painter or wall-decorator, whether of Florence, Siena or Rome.

In this division of opinion it is safer to regard the revival of painting in Giotto’s hands simply as part of the general awakening of the time, and to remember that, as of all Italian communities Florence was the keenest in every form of activity both intellectual and practical, so it was natural that a son of Florence should be the chief agent in such an awakening. And in considering his career the question of his possible participation in the primitive frescoes of the upper courses at Assisi is best left out of account, the more so because of the deplorable condition in which they now exist. But with reference to the lowest course of paintings on the same walls, those illustrating the life of St Francis according to the narrative of St Bonaventura, no one has any doubt, at least in regard to nineteen or twenty of the twenty-eight subjects which compose the series, that Giotto himself was their designer and chief executant. In these, sadly as they too have suffered from time and wholesale repair, there can nevertheless be discerned the unmistakable spirit of the young Florentine master as we know him in his other works—his shrewd realistic and dramatic vigour, the deep sincerity and humanity of feeling which he knows how to express in every gesture of his figures without breaking up the harmony of their grouping or the grandeur of their linear design, qualities inherited from the earlier schools of impressive but lifeless hieratic decoration. The “Renunciation of the Saint by his Father,” the “Pope’s Dream of the Saint upholding the tottering Church,” the “Saint before the Sultan,” the “Miracle of the Spring of Water,” the “Death of the Nobleman of Celano,” the “Saint preaching before Pope Honorius”—these are some of the most noted and best preserved examples of the painter’s power in this series. Where doubt begins again is as to the relations of date and sequence which the series bears to other works by the master executed at Assisi and at Rome in the same early period of his career, that is, probably between 1295 and 1300. Giotto’s remaining undisputed works at Assisi are the four celebrated allegorical compositions in honour of St Francis in the vaulting of the Lower Church,—the “Marriage of St Francis to Poverty,” the “Allegory of Chastity,” the “Allegory of Obedience” and the “Vision of St Francis in Glory.” These works are scarcely at all retouched, and relatively little dimmed by time; they are of a singular beauty, at once severe and tender, both 35 in colour and design; the compositions, especially the first three, fitted with admirable art into the cramped spaces of the vaulting, the subjects, no doubt in the main dictated to the artist by his Franciscan employers, treated in no cold or mechanical spirit but with a full measure of vital humanity and original feeling. Had the career and influence of St Francis had no other of their vast and far-reaching effects in the world than that of inspiring these noble works of art, they would still have been entitled to no small gratitude from mankind. Other works at Assisi which most modern critics, but not all, attribute to Giotto himself are three miracles of St Francis and portions of a group of frescoes illustrating the history of Mary Magdalene, both in the Lower Church; and again, in one of the transepts of the same Lower Church, a series of ten frescoes of the Life of the Virgin and Christ, concluding with the Crucifixion. It is to be remarked as to this transept series that several of the frescoes present not only the same subjects, but with a certain degree of variation the same compositions, as are found in the master’s great series executed in the Arena chapel at Padua in the fullness of his powers about 1306; and that the versions in the Assisi transept show a relatively greater degree of technical accomplishment than the Paduan versions, with a more attractive charm and more abundance of accessory ornament, but a proportionately less degree of that simple grandeur in composition and direct strength of human motive which are the special notes of Giotto’s style. Therefore a minority of critics refuse to accept the modern attribution of this transept series to Giotto himself, and see in it later work by an accomplished pupil softening and refining upon his master’s original creations at Padua. Others, insisting that these unquestionably beautiful works must be by the hand of Giotto and none but Giotto, maintain that in comparison with the Paduan examples they illustrate a gradual progress, which can be traced in other of his extant works, from the relatively ornate and soft to the austerely grand and simple. This argument is enforced by comparison with early work of the master’s at Rome as to the date of which we have positive evidence. In 1298 Giotto completed for Cardinal Stefaneschi for the price of 2200 gold ducats a mosaic of Christ saving St Peter from the waves (the celebrated “Navicella”); this is still to be seen, but in a completely restored and transformed state, in the vestibule of St Peter’s. For the same patron he executed, probably just before the “Navicella,” an elaborate ciborium or altar-piece for the high altar of St Peter’s, for which he received 800 ducats. It represents on the principal face a colossal Christ enthroned with adoring angels beside him and a kneeling donor at his feet, and the martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul on separate panels to right and left; on the reverse is St Peter attended by St George and other saints, receiving from the donor a model of his gift, with stately full-length figures of two apostles to right and two to left, besides various accessory scenes and figures in the predellas and the margins. The separated parts of this altar-piece are still to be seen, in a quite genuine though somewhat tarnished condition, in the sacristy of St Peter’s. A third work by the master at Rome is a repainted fragment at the Lateran of a fresco of Pope Boniface VIII. proclaiming the jubilee of 1300. The “Navicella” and the Lateran fragment are too much ruined to argue from; but the ciborium panels, it is contended, combine with the aspects of majesty and strength a quality of ornate charm and suavity such as is remarked in the transept frescoes of Assisi. The sequence proposed for these several works is accordingly, first the St Peter’s ciborium, next the allegories in the vaulting of the Lower Church, next the three frescoes of St Francis’ miracles in the north transept, next the St Francis series in the Upper Church; and last, perhaps after an interval and with the help of pupils, the scenes from the life of Mary Magdalene in her chapel in the Lower Church. This involves a complete reversal of the prevailing view, which regards the unequal and sometimes clumsy compositions of this St Francis series as the earliest independent work of the master. It must be admitted that there is something paradoxical in the idea of a progress from the manner of the Lower Church transept series of the life of Christ to the much ruder manner of the Upper Church series of St Francis.

A kindred obscurity and little less conflict of opinion await the inquirer at almost all stages of Giotto’s career. In 1841 there were partially recovered from the whitewash that had overlain them a series of frescoes executed in the chapel of the Magdalene, in the Bargello or Palace of the Podestà at Florence, to celebrate (as was supposed) a pacification between the Black and White parties in the state effected by the Cardinal d’Acquasparta as delegate of the pope in 1302. In them are depicted a series of Bible scenes, besides great compositions of Hell and Paradise, and in the Paradise are introduced portraits of Dante, Brunetto Latini and Corso Donato. These recovered fragments, freely “restored” as soon as they were disclosed, were acclaimed as the work of Giotto and long held in especial regard for the sake of the portrait of Dante. Latterly it has been shown that if Giotto ever executed them at all, which is doubtful, it must have been at a later date than the supposed pacification, and that they must have suffered grievous injury in the fire which destroyed a great part of the building in 1332, and been afterwards repainted by some well-trained follower of the school. To about 1302 or 1303 would belong, if there is truth in it, the familiar story of Giotto’s O. Pope Benedict XI., the successor of Boniface VIII., sent, as the tale runs, a messenger to bring him proofs of the painter’s powers. Giotto would give no other sample of his talent than an O drawn with a free sweep of the brush from the elbow; but the pope was satisfied and engaged him at a great salary to go and adorn with frescoes the papal residence at Avignon. Benedict, however, dying at this time (1305), nothing came of this commission; and the remains of Italian 14th-century frescoes still to be seen at Avignon are now recognized as the work, not, as was long supposed, of Giotto, but of the Sienese Simone Martini and his school.

At this point in Giotto’s life we come to the greatest by far of his undestroyed and undisputed enterprises, and one which can with some certainty be dated. This is the series of frescoes with which he decorated the entire internal walls of the chapel built at Padua in honour of the Virgin of the Annunciation by a rich citizen of the town, Enrico Scrovegni, perhaps in order to atone for the sins of his father, a notorious usurer whom Dante places in the seventh circle of hell. The building is on the site of an ancient amphitheatre, and is therefore generally called the chapel of the Arena. Since it is recorded that Dante was Giotto’s guest at Padua, and since we know that it was in 1306 that the poet came from Bologna to that city, we may conclude that to the same year, 1306, belongs the beginning of Giotto’s great undertaking in the Arena chapel. The scheme includes a Saviour in Glory over the altar, a Last Judgment, full of various and impressive incident, occupying the whole of the entrance wall, with a series of subjects from the Old and New Testament and the apocryphal Life of Christ painted in three tiers on either side wall, and lowest of all a fourth tier with emblematic Virtues and Vices in monochrome; the Virtues being on the side of the chapel next the incidents of redemption in the entrance fresco of the Last Judgment, the Vices on the side next the incidents of perdition. A not improbable tradition asserts that Giotto was helped by Dante in the choice and disposition of the subjects. The frescoes, though not free from injury and retouching, are upon the whole in good condition, and nowhere else can the highest powers of the Italian mind and hand at the beginning of the 14th century be so well studied as here. At the close of the middle ages we find Giotto laying the foundation upon which all the progress of the Renaissance was afterwards securely based. In his day the knowledge possessed by painters of the human frame and its structure rested only upon general observation and not upon detailed or scientific study; while to facts other than those of humanity their observation had never been closely directed. Of linear perspective they possessed but elementary and empirical ideas, and their endeavours to express aerial perspective and deal with the problems of light and shade were rare and partial. As far as painting could possibly be carried under these conditions, it was carried by Giotto. In its choice of 36 subjects, his art is entirely subservient to the religious spirit of his age. Even in its mode of conceiving and arranging those subjects it is in part still trammelled by the rules and consecrated traditions of the past. Many of those truths of nature to which the painters of succeeding generations learned to give accurate and complete expression, Giotto was only able to express by way o£ imperfect symbol and suggestion. But among the elements of art over which he has control he maintains so just a balance that his work produces in the spectator less sense of imperfection than that of many later and more accomplished masters. In some particulars his mature painting, as we see it in the Arena chapel, has never been surpassed—in mastery of concise and expressive generalized line and of inventive and harmonious decorative tint; in the judicious division of the field and massing and scattering of groups; in the combination of high gravity with complete frankness in conception, and the union of noble dignity in the types with direct and vital truth in the gestures of the personages.

The frescoes of the Arena chapel must have been a labour of years, and of the date of their termination we have no proof. Of many other works said to have been executed by Giotto at Padua, all that remains consists of some scarce recognizable traces in the chapter-house of the great Franciscan church of St Antonio. For twenty years or more we lose all authentic data as to Giotto’s doings and movements. Vasari, indeed, sends him on a giddy but in the main evidently fabulous round of travels, including a sojourn in France, which it is certain he never made. Besides Padua, he is said to have resided and left great works at Ferrara, Ravenna, Urbino, Rimini, Faenza, Lucca and other cities; in some of them paintings of his school are still shown, but nothing which can fairly be claimed to be by his hand. It is recorded also that he was much employed in his native city of Florence; but the vandalism of later generations has effaced nearly all that he did there. Among works whitewashed over by posterity were the frescoes with which he covered no less than five chapels in the church of Santa Croce. Two of these, the chapels of the Bardi and the Peruzzi families, were scraped in the early part of the 19th century, and very important remains were uncovered and immediately subjected to a process of restoration which has robbed them of half their authenticity. But through the ruins of time we can trace in some of these Santa Croce frescoes all the qualities of Giotto’s work at an even higher and more mature development than in the best examples at Assisi or Padua. The frescoes of the Bardi chapel tell again the story of St Francis, to which so much of his best power had already been devoted; those of the Peruzzi chapel deal with the lives of St John the Baptist and St John the Evangelist. Such scenes as the Funeral of St Francis, the Dance of Herodias’s Daughter, and the Resurrection of St John the Evangelist, which have to some extent escaped the disfigurements of the restorer, are among acknowledged classics of the world’s art. The only clues to the dates of any of these works are to be found in the facts that among the figures in the Bardi chapel occurs that of St Louis of Toulouse, who was not canonized till 1317, therefore the painting must be subsequent to that year, and that the “Dance of Salome” must have been painted before 1331, when it was copied by the Lorenzetti at Siena. The only other extant works of Giotto at Florence are a fine “Crucifix,” not undisputed, at San Marco, and the majestic but somewhat heavy altar-piece of the Madonna, probably an early work, which is placed in the Academy beside a more primitive Madonna supposed to be the work of Cimabue.

Towards the end of Giotto’s life we escape again from confused legend, and from the tantalizing record of works which have not survived for us to verify, into the region of authentic document and fact. It appears that Giotto had come under the notice of Duke Charles of Calabria, son of King Robert of Naples, during the visits of the duke to Florence which took place between 1326 and 1328, in which year he died. Soon afterwards Giotto must have gone to King Robert’s court at Naples, where he was enrolled as an honoured guest and member of the household by a royal decree dated the 20th of January 1330. Another document shows him to have been still at Naples two years later. Tradition says much about the friendship of the king for the painter and the freedom of speech and jest allowed him; much also of the works he carried out at Naples in the Castel Nuovo, the Castel dell’ Uovo, and the church and convent of Sta Chiara. Not a trace of these works remains; and others which later criticism have claimed for him in a hall which formerly belonged to the convent of Sta Chiara have been proved not to be his.

Meantime Giotto had been advancing, not only in years and worldly fame, but in prosperity. He was married young, and had, so far as is recorded, three sons, Francesco, Niccola and Donato, and three daughters, Bice, Caterina and Lucia. He had added by successive purchases to the plot of land inherited from his father at Vespignano. His fellow-citizens of all occupations and degrees delighted to honour him. And now, in his sixty-eighth year (if we accept the birth-date 1266/7), on his return from Naples by way of Gaeta, he received the final and official testimony to the esteem in which he was held at Florence. By a solemn decree of the Priori on the 12th of April 1334, he was appointed master of the works of the cathedral of Sta Reparata (later and better known as Sta Maria del Fiore) and official architect of the city walls and the towns within her territory. What training as a practical architect his earlier career had afforded him we do not know, but his interest in the art from the beginning is made clear by the carefully studied architectural backgrounds of many of his frescoes. Dying on the 8th of January 1336 (old style 1337), Giotto only enjoyed his new dignities for two years. But in the course of them he had found time not only to make an excursion to Milan, on the invitation of Azzo Visconti and with the sanction of his own government, but to plan two great architectural works at Florence and superintend the beginning of their execution, namely the west front of the cathedral and its detached campanile or bell-tower. The unfinished enrichments of the cathedral front were stripped away in a later age. The foundation-stone of the Campanile was laid with solemn ceremony in the presence of a great concourse of magistrates and people on the 18th of July 1334. Its lower courses seem to have been completed from Giotto’s design, and the first course of its sculptured ornaments (the famous series of primitive Arts and Industries) actually by his own hand, before his death. It is not clear what modifications of his design were made by Andrea Pisano, who was appointed to succeed him, or again by Francesco Talenti, to whom the work was next entrusted; but the incomparable structure as we now see it stands justly in the world’s esteem as the most fitting monument to the genius who first conceived and directed it.

The art of painting, as re-created by Giotto, was carried on throughout Italy by his pupils and successors with little change or development for nearly a hundred years, until a new impulse was given to art by the combined influences of naturalism and classicism in the hands of men like Donatello and Masaccio. Most of the anecdotes related of the master are probably inaccurate in detail, but the general character both as artist and man which tradition has agreed in giving him can never be assailed. He was from the first a kind of popular hero. He is celebrated by the poet Petrarch and by the historian Villani. He is made the subject of tales and anecdotes by Boccaccio and by Franco Sacchetti. From these notices, as well as from Vasari, we gain a distinct picture of the man, as one whose nature was in keeping with his country origin; whose sturdy frame and plain features corresponded to a character rather distinguished for shrewd and genial strength than for sublimer or more ascetic qualities; a master craftsman, to whose strong combining and inventing powers nothing came amiss; conscious of his own deserts, never at a loss either in the things of art or in the things of life, and equally ready and efficient whether he has to design the scheme of some great spiritual allegory in colour or imperishable monument in stone, or whether he has to show his wit in the encounter of practical jest and repartee. From his own hand we have a contribution to literature which helps to substantiate this conception of his character. A large part of Giotto’s fame as painter was won in the service of the Franciscans, and in the pictorial celebration of the life and ordinances of 37 their founder. As is well known, it was a part of the ordinances of Francis that his disciples should follow his own example in worshipping and being wedded to poverty,—poverty idealized and personified as a spiritual bride and mistress. Giotto, having on the commission of the order given the noblest pictorial embodiment to this and other aspects of the Franciscan doctrine, presently wrote an ode in which his own views on poverty are expressed; and in this he shows that, if on the one hand his genius was at the service of the ideals of his time, and his imagination open to their significance, on the other hand his judgment was shrewdly and humorously awake to their practical dangers and exaggerations.

GIPSIES, or Gypsies, a wandering folk scattered through every European land, over the greater part of western Asia and Siberia; found also in Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, in America and even in Australia. No correct estimate of their numbers outside of Europe can be given, and even in Europe the information derived from official statistics is often contradictory and unreliable. The only country in which the figures have been given correctly is Hungary. In 1893 there were 274,940 in Transleithania, of whom 243,432 were settled, 20,406 only partly settled and 8938 nomads. Of these 91,603 spoke the Gipsy language in 1890, but the rest had already been assimilated. Next in numbers stands Rumania, the number varying between 250,000 and 200,000 (1895). Turkey in Europe counted 117,000 (1903), of whom 51,000 were in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, 22,000 in the vilayet of Adrianople and 2500 in the vilayet of Kossovo. In Asiatic Turkey the estimates vary between 67,000 and 200,000. Servia has 41,000; Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18,000; Greece, 10,000; Austria (Cisleithania), 16,000, of whom 13,500 are in Bohemia and Moravia; Germany, 2000; France, 2000 (5000?); Basque Provinces, 500 to 700; Italy, 32,000; Spain, 40,000; Russia, 58,000; Poland, 15,000; Sweden and Norway, 1500; Denmark and Holland, 5000; Persia, 15,000; Transcaucasia, 3000. The rest is mere guesswork. For Africa, America and Australia the numbers are estimated between 135,000 and 166,000. The estimate given by Miklosich (1878) of 700,000 fairly agrees with the above statistics. No statistics are forthcoming for the number in the British Isles. Some estimate their number at 12,000.

The Gipsies are known principally by two names, which have been modified by the nations with whom they came in contact, but which can easily be traced to either the one or the other of these two distinct stems. The one group, embracing the majority of Gipsies in Europe, the compact masses living in the Balkan Peninsula, Rumania and Transylvania and extending also as far as Germany and Italy, are known by the name Atzigan or Atsigan, which becomes in time Tshingian (Turkey and Greece), Tsigan (Bulgarian, Servian, Rumanian), Czigány (Hungarian), Zigeuner (Germany), Zingari (Italian), and it is not unlikely that the English word Tinker or Tinkler (the latter no doubt due to a popular etymology connecting the gaudy gipsy with the tinkling coins or the metal wares which he carried on his back as a smith and tinker) may be a local transformation of the German Zigeuner. The second name, partly known in the East, where the word, however, is used as an expression of contempt, whilst Zigan is not felt by the gipsies as an insult, is Egyptian; in England, Gipsy; in some German documents of the 16th century Aegypter; Spanish Gitano; modern Greek Gyphtos. They are also known by the parallel expressions Faraon (Rumanian) and Phárao Nephka (Hungarian) or Pharaoh’s people, which are only variations connected with the Egyptian origin. In France they are known as Bohémiens, a word the importance of which will appear later. To the same category belong other names bestowed upon them, such as Walachi, Saraceni, Agareni, Nubiani, &c. They were also known by the name of Tartars, given to them in Germany, or as “Heathen,” Heydens. All these latter must be considered as nicknames without thereby denoting their probable origin. The same may have now been the ease with the first name with which they appear in history, Atzigan. Much ingenuity has been displayed in attempts to explain the name, for it was felt that a true explanation might help to settle the question of their origin and the date of their arrival in Europe. Here again two extreme theories have been propounded, the one supported by Bataillard, who connected them with the Sigynnoi of Herodotus and identified them with the Komodromoi of the later Byzantine writers, known already in the 6th century. Others bring them to Europe as late as the 14th century; and the name has also been explained by de Goeje from the Persian Chang, a kind of harp or zither, or the Persian Zang, black, swarthy. Rienzi (1832) and Trumpp (1872) have connected the name with the Changars of North-East India, but all have omitted to notice that the real form was Atzigan or (more correct) Atzingan and not Tsigan. The best explanation remains that suggested by Miklosich, who derives the word from the Athinganoi, a name originally belonging to a peculiar heretical sect living in Asia Minor near Phrygia and Lycaonia, known also as the Melki-Zedekites. The members of this sect observed very strict rules of purity, as they were afraid to be defiled by the touch of other people whom they considered unclean. They therefore acquired the name of Athinganoi (i.e. “Touch-me-nots”).

Miklosich has collected seven passages where the Byzantine historians of the 9th century describe the Athinganoi as soothsayers, magicians and serpent-charmers. From these descriptions nothing definite can be proved as to the identity of the Athinganoi with the Gipsies, or the reason why this name was given to soothsayers, charmers, &c. But the inner history of the Byzantine empire of that period may easily give a clue to it and explain how it came about that such a nickname was given to a new sect or to a new race which suddenly appeared in the Greek Empire at that period. In the history of the Church we find them mentioned in one breath with the Paulicians and other heretical sects which were transplanted in their tens of thousands from Asia Minor to the Greek empire and settled especially in Rumelia, near Adrianople and Philippopolis. The Greeks called these heretical sects by all kinds of names, derived from ancient Church traditions, and gave to each sect such names as first struck them, on the scantiest of imaginary similarities. One sect was called Paulician, another Melki-Zedekite; so also these were called Athinganoi, probably being considered the descendants of the outcast Samer, who, according to ancient tradition, was a goldsmith and the maker of the Golden Calf in the desert. For this sin Samer was banished and compelled to live apart from human beings and even to avoid their touch (Athinganos: “Touch-me-not”). Travelling from East to West these heretical sects obtained different names in different countries, in accordance with the local traditions or to imaginary origins. The Bogomils and Patarenes became Bulgarians in France, and so the gypsies Bohémiens, a name which was also connected with the heretical sect of the Bohemian brothers (Böhmische Brüder). Curiously enough the Kutzo-Vlachs living in Macedonia (q.v.) and Rumelia are also known by the nickname Tsintsari, a word that has not yet been explained. Very likely it stands in close connexion with Zingari, the name having been transferred from one people to the other without the justification of any common ethnical origin, except that the Kutzo-Vlachs, like the Zingari, differed from their Greek neighbours in race, as in language, habits and customs; while they probably followed similar pursuits to those of the Zingari, as smiths, &c. As to the other name, Egyptians, this is derived from a peculiar tale which the gipsies spread when appearing in the west of Europe. They alleged that they had come from a country of their own called Little Egypt, either a confusion between Little Armenia and Egypt or the Peloponnesus.

Attention may be drawn to a remarkable passage in the Syriac version of the apocryphal Book of Adam, known as the Cave of Treasures and compiled probably in the 6th century: “And 38 of the seed of Canaan were as I said the Aegyptians; and, lo, they were scattered all over the earth and served as slaves of slaves” (ed. Bezold, German translation, p. 25). No reference to such a scattering and serfdom of the Egyptians is mentioned anywhere else. This must have been a legend, current in Asia Minor, and hence probably transferred to the swarthy Gipsies.

A new explanation may now be ventured upon as to the name which the Gipsies of Europe give to themselves, which, it must be emphasized, is not known to the Gipsies outside of Europe. Only those who starting from the ancient Byzantine empire have travelled westwards and spread over Europe, America and Australia call themselves by the name of Rom, the woman being Romni and a stranger Gaži. Many etymologies have been suggested for the word Rom. Paspati derived it from the word Droma (Indian), and Miklosich had identified it with Ḍoma or Ḍomba, a “low caste musician,” rather an extraordinary name for a nation to call itself by. Having no home and no country of their own and no political traditions and no literature, they would naturally try to identify themselves with the people in whose midst they lived, and would call themselves by the same name as other inhabitants of the Greek empire, known also as the Empire of New Rom, or of the Romaioi, Romeliots, Romanoi, as the Byzantines used to call themselves before they assumed the prouder name of Hellenes. The Gipsies would therefore call themselves also Rom, a much more natural name, more flattering to their vanity, and geographically and politically more correct than if they called themselves “low caste musicians.” This Greek origin of the name would explain why it is limited to the European Gipsies, and why it is not found among that stock of Gipsies which has migrated from Asia Minor southwards and taken a different route to reach Egypt and North Africa.

Appearance in Europe.—Leaving aside the doubtful passages in the Byzantine writers where the Athinganoi are mentioned, the first appearance of Gipsies in Europe cannot be traced positively further back than the beginning of the 14th century. Some have hitherto believed that a passage in what was erroneously called the Rhymed Version of Genesis of Vienna, but which turns out to be the work of a writer before the year 1122, and found only in the Klagenfurt manuscript (edited by Ditmar, 1862), referred to the Gipsies. It runs as follows: Gen. xiii. 15—“Hagar had a son from whom were born the Chaltsmide. When Hagar had that child, she named it Ismael, from whom the Ismaelites descend who journey through the land, and we call them Chaltsmide, may evil befall them! They sell only things with blemishes, and for whatever they sell they always ask more than its real value. They cheat the people to whom they sell. They have no home, no country, they are satisfied to live in tents, they wander over the country, they deceive the people, they cheat men but rob no one noisily.”

This reference to the Chaltsmide (not goldsmiths, but very likely ironworkers, smiths) has wrongly been applied to the Gipsies. For it is important to note that at least three centuries before historical evidence proves the immigration of the genuine Gipsy, there had been wayfaring smiths, travelling from country to country, and practically paving the way for their successors, the Gipsies, who not only took up their crafts but who probably have also assimilated a good proportion of these vagrants of the west of Europe. The name given to the former, who probably were Oriental or Greek smiths and pedlars, was then transferred to the new-comers. The Komodromoi mentioned by Theophanes (758-818), who speaks under the date 554 of one hailing from Italy, and by other Byzantine writers, are no doubt the same as the Chaltsmide of the German writer of the 12th century translated by Ducange as Chaudroneurs. We are on surer ground in the 14th century. Hopf has proved the existence of Gipsies in Corfu before 1326. Before 1346 the empress Catherine de Valois granted to the governor of Corfu authority to reduce to vassalage certain vagrants who came from the mainland; and in 1386, under the Venetians, they formed the Feudum Acindanorum, which lasted for many centuries. About 1378 the Venetian governor of Nauplia confirmed to the “Acingani” of that colony the privileges granted by his predecessor to their leader John. It is even possible to identify the people described by Friar Simon in his Itinerarium, who, speaking of his stay in Crete in 1322, says: “We saw there a people outside the city who declare themselves to be of the race of Ham and who worship according to the Greek rite. They wander like a cursed people from place to place, not stopping at all or rarely in one place longer than thirty days; they live in tents like the Arabs, a little oblong black tent.” But their name is not mentioned, and although the similarity is great between these “children of Ham” and the Gipsies, the identification has only the value of an hypothesis. By the end of the 15th century they must have been settled for a sufficiently long time in the Balkan Peninsula and the countries north of the Danube, such as Transylvania and Walachia, to have been reduced to the same state of serfdom as they evidently occupied in Corfu in the second half of the 14th century. The voivode Mircea I. of Walachia confirms the grant made by his uncle Vladislav Voivode to the monastery of St Anthony of Voditsa as to forty families of “Atsigane,” for whom no taxes should be paid to the prince. They were considered crown property. The same gift is renewed in the year 1424 by the voivode Dan, who repeats the very same words (i Acigăne, m, čeliudi. da su slobodni ot vstkih rabot i dankov) (Hăjdău, Arhiva, i. 20). At that time there must already have been in Walachia settled Gipsies treated as serfs, and migrating Gipsies plying their trade as smiths, musicians, dancers, soothsayers, horse-dealers, &c., for we find the voivode Alexander of Moldavia granting these Gipsies in the year 1478 “freedom of air and soil to wander about and free fire and iron for their smithy.” But a certain portion, probably the largest, became serfs, who could be sold, exchanged, bartered and inherited. It may be mentioned here that in the 17th century a family when sold fetched forty Hungarian florins, and in the 18th century the price was sometimes as high as 700 Rumanian piastres, about £8, 10s. As late as 1845 an auction of 200 families of Gipsies took place in Bucharest, where they were sold in batches of no less than 5 families and offered at a “ducat” cheaper per head than elsewhere. The Gipsies followed at least four distinct pursuits in Rumania and Transylvania, where they lived in large masses. A goodly proportion of them were tied to the soil; in consequence their position was different from that of the Gipsies who had started westwards and who are nowhere found to have obtained a permanent abode for any length of time, or to have been treated, except for a very short period, with any consideration of humanity.

Their appearance in the West is first noted by chroniclers early in the 15th century. In 1414 they are said to have already arrived in Hesse. This date is contested, but for 1417 the reports are unanimous of their appearance in Germany. Some count their number to have been as high as 1400, which of course is exaggeration. In 1418 they reached Hamburg, 1419 Augsburg, 1428 Switzerland. In 1427 they had already entered France (Provence). A troupe is said to have reached Bologna in 1422, whence they are said to have gone to Rome, on a pilgrimage alleged to have been undertaken for some act of apostasy. After this first immigration a second and larger one seems to have followed in its wake, led by Zumbel. The Gipsies spread over Germany, Italy and France between the years 1438 and 1512. About 1500 they must have reached England. On the 5th of July 1505 James IV. of Scotland gave to “Antonius Gaginae,” count of Little Egypt, letters of recommendation to the king of Denmark; and special privileges were granted by James V. on the 15th of February 1540 to “oure louit johnne Faw Lord and Erle of Litill Egypt,” to whose son and successor he granted authority to hang and punish all Egyptians within the realm (May 26, 1540).

It is interesting to hear what the first writers who witnessed their appearance have to tell us; for ever since the Gipsies have remained the same. Albert Krantzius (Krantz), in his Saxonia (xi. 2), was the first to give a full description, which was afterwards repeated by Munster in his Cosmographia (iii. 5). 39 He says that in the year 1417 there appeared for the first time in Germany a people uncouth, black, dirty, barbarous, called in Italian “Ciani,” who indulge specially in thieving and cheating. They had among them a count and a few knights well dressed, others followed afoot. The women and children travelled in carts. They also carried with them letters of safe-conduct from the emperor Sigismund and other princes, and they professed that they were engaged on a pilgrimage of expiation for some act of apostasy.

The guilt of the Gipsies varies in the different versions of the story, but all agree that the Gipsies asserted that they came from their own country called “Litill Egypt,” and they had to go to Rome, to obtain pardon for that alleged sin of their forefathers. According to one account it was because they had not shown mercy to Joseph and Mary when they had sought refuge in Egypt from the persecution of Herod (Basel Chronicle). According to another, because they had forsaken the Christian faith for a while (Rhaetia, 1656), &c. But these were fables, no doubt connected with the legend of Cartaphylus or the Wandering Jew.

Krantz’s narrative continues as follows: This people have no country and travel through the land. They live like dogs and have no religion although they allow themselves to be baptized in the Christian faith. They live without care and gather unto themselves also other vagrants, men and women. Their old women practise fortune-telling, and whilst they are telling men of their future they pick their pockets. Thus far Krantz. It is curious that he should use the name by which these people were called in Italy, “Ciani.” Similarly Crusius, the author of the Annales Suevici, knows their Italian name Zigani and the French Bohémiens. Not one of these oldest writers mentions them as coppersmiths or farriers or musicians. The immunity which they enjoyed during their first appearance in western Europe is due to the letter of safe-conduct of the emperor. As it is of extreme importance for the history of civilization as well as the history of the Gipsies, it may find a place here. It is taken from the compilation of Felix Oefelius, Rerum Boicarum scriptores (Augsburg, 1763), ii. 15, who reproduces the “Diarium sexennale” of “Andreas Presbyter,” the contemporary of the first appearance of the Gipsies in Germany.

“Sigismundus Dei gratia Romanorum Rex semper Augustus, ac Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, &c. Rex Fidelibus nostris universis Nobilibus, Militibus, Castellanis, Officialibus, Tributariis, civitatibus liberis, opidis et eorum iudicibus in Regno et sub domino nostro constitutis ex existentibus salutem cum dilectione. Fidèles nostri adierunt in praesentiam personaliter Ladislaus Wayuoda Ciganorum cum aliis ad ipsum spectantibus, nobis humilimas porrexerunt supplicationes, huc in sepus in nostra praesentia supplicationum precum cum instantiâ, ut ipsis gratiâ nostra uberiori providere dignaremur. Unde nos illorum supplicatione illecti eisdem hanc libertatem duximus concedendam, qua re quandocunque idem Ladislaus Wayuoda et sua gens ad dicta nostra dominia videlicet civitates vel oppida pervenerint, ex tunc vestris fidelitatibus praesentibus firmiter committimus et mandamus ut eosdem Ladislaum Wayuodam et Ciganos sibi subiectos omni sine impedimento ac perturbatione aliquali fovere ac conservare debeatis, immo ab omnibus impetitionibus seu offensionibus tueri velitis: Si autem inter ipsos aliqua Zizania seu perturbatio evenerit ex parte, quorumcunque ex tunc non vos nec aliquis alter vestrum, sed idem Ladislaus Wayuoda iudicandi et liberandi habeat facultatem. Praesentes autem post earum lecturam semper reddi iubemus praesentanti.

“Datum in Sepus Dominica die ante festum St Georgii Martyris Anno Domini MCCCCXXIII., Regnorum nostrorum anno Hungar. XXXVI., Romanorum vero XII., Bohemiae tertio.”

Freely translated this reads: “We Sigismund by the grace of God emperor of Rome, king of Hungary, Bohemia, &c. unto all true and loyal subjects, noble soldiers, commanders, castellans, open districts, free towns and their judges in our kingdom established and under our sovereignty, kind greetings. Our faithful voivode of the Tsigani with others belonging to him has humbly requested us that we might graciously grant them our abundant favour. We grant them their supplication, we have vouchsafed unto them this liberty. Whenever therefore this voivode Ladislaus and his people should come to any part of our realm in any town, village or place, we commit them by these presents, strongly to your loyalty and we command you to protect in every way the same voivode Ladislaus and the Tsigani his subjects without hindrance, and you should show kindness unto them and you should protect them from every trouble and persecution. But should any trouble or discord happen among them from whichever side it may be, then none of you nor anyone else belonging to you should interfere, but this voivode Ladislaus alone should have the right of punishing and pardoning. And we moreover command you to return these presents always after having read them. Given in our court on Sunday the day before the Feast of St George in the year of our Lord 1423. The 36th year of our kingdom of Hungary, the 12th of our being emperor of Rome and the 3rd of our being king of Bohemia.”

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document, which is in no way remarkable considering that at that time the Gipsies must have formed a very considerable portion of the inhabitants of Hungary, whose king Sigismund was. They may have presented the emperor’s grant of favours to Alexander prince of Moldavia in 1472, and obtained from him safe-conduct and protection, as mentioned above.

No one has yet attempted to explain the reason why the Gipsies should have started in the 14th and especially in the first half of the 15th century on their march westwards. But if, as has been assumed above, the Gipsies had lived for some length of time in Rumelia, and afterwards spread thence across the Danube and the plains of Transylvania, the incursion of the Turks into Europe, their successive occupation of those very provinces, the overthrow of the Servian and Bulgarian kingdoms and the dislocation of the native population, would account to a remarkable degree for the movement of the Gipsies: and this movement increases in volume with the greater successes of the Turks and with the peopling of the country by immigrants from Asia Minor. The first to be driven from their homes would no doubt be the nomadic element, which felt itself ill at ease in its new surroundings, and found it more profitable first to settle in larger numbers in Walachia and Transylvania and thence to spread to the western countries of Europe. But their immunity from persecution did not last long.

Later History.—Less than fifty years from the time that they emerge out of Hungary, or even from the date of the Charter of the emperor Sigismund, they found themselves exposed to the fury and the prejudices of the people whose good faith they had abused, whose purses they had lightened, whose barns they had emptied, and on whose credulity they had lived with ease and comfort. Their inborn tendency to roaming made them the terror of the peasantry and the despair of every legislator who tried to settle them on the land. Their foreign appearance, their unknown tongue and their unscrupulous habits forced the legislators of many countries to class them with rogues and vagabonds, to declare them outlaws and felons and to treat them with extreme severity. More than one judicial murder has been committed against them. In some places they were suspected as Turkish spies and treated accordingly, and the murderer of a Gipsy was often regarded as innocent of any crime.

Weissenbruch describes the wholesale murder of a group of Gipsies, of whom five men were broken on the wheel, nine perished on the gallows, and three men and eight women were decapitated. This took place on the 14th and 15th of November 1726. Acts and edicts were issued in many countries from the end of the 15th century onwards sentencing the “Egyptians” to exile under pain of death. Nor was this an empty threat. In Edinburgh four “Faas” were hanged in 1611 “for abyding within the kingdome, they being Egiptienis,” and in 1636 at Haddington the Egyptians were ordered “the men to be hangied and the weomen to be drowned, and suche of the weomen as hes children to be scourgit throw the burg and burnt in the cheeks.” The burning on the cheek or on the back was a common penalty. 40 In 1692 four Estremadura Gipsies caught by the Inquisition were charged with cannibalism and made to own that they had eaten a friar, a pilgrim and even a woman of their own tribe, for which they suffered the penalty of death. And as late as 1782, 45 Hungarian Gipsies were charged with a similar monstrous crime, and when the supposed victims of a supposed murder could not be found on the spot indicated by the Gipsies, they owned under torture and said on the rack, “We ate them.” Of course they were forthwith beheaded or hanged. The emperor Joseph II., who was also the author of one of the first edicts in favour of the Gipsies, and who abolished serfdom throughout the Empire, ordered an inquiry into the incident; it was then discovered that no murder had been committed, except that of the victims of this monstrous accusation.

The history of the legal status of the Gipsies, of their treatment in various countries and of the penalties and inflictions to which they have been subjected, would form a remarkable chapter in the history of modern civilization. The materials are slowly accumulating, and it is interesting to note as one of the latest instances, that not further back than the year 1907 a “drive” was undertaken in Germany against the Gipsies, which fact may account for the appearance of some German Gipsies in England in that year, and that in 1904 the Prussian Landtag adopted unanimously a proposition to examine anew the question of granting peddling licences to German Gipsies; that on the 17th of February 1906 the Prussian minister issued special instructions to combat the Gipsy nuisance; and that in various parts of Germany and Austria a special register is kept for the tracing of the genealogy of vagrant and sedentary Gipsy families.

Different has been the history of the Gipsies in what originally formed the Turkish empire of Europe, notably in Rumania, i.e. Walachia and Moldavia, and a careful search in the archives of Rumania would offer rich materials for the history of the Gipsies in a country where they enjoyed exceptional treatment almost from the beginning of their settlement. They were divided mainly into two classes, (1) Robi or Serfs, who were settled on the land and deprived of all individual liberty, being the property of the nobles and of churches or monastic establishments, and (2) the Nomadic vagrants. They were subdivided into four classes according to their occupation, such as the Lingurari (woodcarvers; lit. “spoonmakers”), Caldarari (tinkers, coppersmiths and ironworkers), Ursari (lit. “bear drivers”) and Rudari (miners), also called Aurari (gold-washers), who used formerly to wash the gold out of the auriferous river-sands of Walachia. A separate and smaller class consisted of the Gipsy Lăeshi or Vătrashi (settled on a homestead or “having a fireplace” of their own). Each shatra or Gipsy community was placed under the authority of a judge or leader, known in Rumania as jude, in Hungary as aga; these officials were subordinate to the bulubasha or voivod, who was himself under the direct control of the yuzbasha (or governor appointed by the prince from among his nobles). The yuzbasha was responsible for the regular income to be derived from the vagrant Gipsies, who were considered and treated as the prince’s property. These voivodi or yuzbashi who were not Gipsies by origin often treated the Gipsies with great tyranny. In Hungary down to 1648 they belonged to the aristocracy. The last Polish Krolestvo cyganskie or Gipsy king died in 1790. The Robi could be bought and sold, freely exchanged and inherited, and were treated as the negroes in America down to 1856, when their final freedom in Moldavia was proclaimed. In Hungary and in Transylvania the abolition of servitude in 1781-1782 carried with it the freedom of the Gipsies. In the 18th and 19th centuries many attempts were made to settle and to educate the roaming Gipsies; in Austria this was undertaken by the empress Maria Theresa and the emperor Francis II. (1761-1783), in Spain by Charles III. (1788). In Poland (1791) the attempt succeeded. In England (1827) and in Germany (1830) societies were formed for the reclamation of the Gipsies, but nothing was accomplished in either case. In other countries, however, definite progress was made. Since 1866 the Gipsies have become Rumanian citizens, and the latest official statistics no longer distinguish between the Rumanians and the Gipsies, who are becoming thoroughly assimilated, forgetting their language, and being slowly absorbed by the native population. In Bulgaria the Gipsies were declared citizens, enjoying equal political rights in accordance with the treaty of Berlin in 1878, but through an arbitrary interpretation they were deprived of that right, and on the 6th of January 1906 the first Gipsy Congress was held in Sofia, for the purpose of claiming political rights for the Turkish Gipsies or Gopti as they call themselves. Ramadan Alief, the tzari-bashi (i.e. the head of the Gipsies in Sofia), addressed the Gipsies assembled; they decided to protest and subsequently sent a petition to the Sobranye, demanding the recognition of their political rights. A curious reawakening, and an interesting chapter in the history of this peculiar race.

Origin and Language of the Gipsies.—The real key to their origin is, however, the Gipsy language. The scientific study of that language began in the middle of the 19th century with the work of Pott, and was brought to a high state of perfection by Miklosich. From that time on monographs have multiplied and minute researches have been carried on in many parts of the world, all tending to elucidate the true origin of the Gipsy language. It must remain for the time being an open question whether the Gipsies were originally a pure race. Many a strange element has contributed to swell their ranks and to introduce discordant elements into their vocabulary. Ruediger (1782), Grellmann (1783) and Marsden (1783) almost simultaneously and independently of one another came to the same conclusion, that the language of the Gipsies, until then considered a thieves’ jargon, was in reality a language closely allied with some Indian speech. Since then the two principal problems to be solved have been, firstly, to which of the languages of India the original Gipsy speech was most closely allied, and secondly, by which route the people speaking that language had reached Europe and then spread westwards. Despite the rapid increase in our knowledge of Indian languages, no solution has yet been found to the first problem, nor is it likely to be found. For the language of the Gipsies, as shown now by recent studies of the Armenian Gipsies, has undergone such a profound change and involves so many difficulties, that it is impossible to compare the modern Gipsy with any modern Indian dialect owing to the inner developments which the Gipsy language has undergone in the course of centuries. All that is known, moreover, of the Gipsy language, and all that rests on reliable texts, is quite modern, scarcely earlier than the middle of the 19th century. Followed up in the various dialects into which that language has split, it shows such a thorough change from dialect to dialect, that except as regards general outlines and principles of inflexion, nothing would be more misleading than to draw conclusions from apparent similarities between Gipsy, or any Gipsy dialect, and any Indian language; especially as the Gipsies must have been separated from the Indian races for a much longer period than has elapsed since their arrival in Europe and since the formation of their European dialects. It must also be borne in mind that the Indian languages have also undergone profound changes of their own, under influences totally different from those to which the Gipsy language has been subjected. The problem would stand differently if by any chance an ancient vocabulary were discovered representing the oldest form of the common stock from which the European dialects have sprung; for there can be no doubt of the unity of the language of the European Gipsies. The question whether Gipsy stands close to Sanskrit or Prakrit, or shows forms more akin to Hindi dialects, specially those of the North-West frontier, or Dardestan and Kafiristan, to which may be added now the dialects of the Pisāca language (Grierson, 1906), is affected by the fact established by Fink that the dialect of the Armenian Gipsies shows much closer resemblance to Prakrit than the language of the European Gipsies, and that the dialects of Gipsy spoken throughout Syria and Asia Minor differ profoundly in every respect from the European Gipsy, taken as a whole spoken. The only explanation possible is that the European Gipsy represents the first wave of the Westward movement of an Indian tribe or caste which, dislocated 41 at a certain period by political disturbances, had travelled through Persia, making a very short stay there, thence to Armenia staying there a little longer, and then possibly to the Byzantine Empire at an indefinite period between 1100 and 1200; and that another clan had followed in their wake, passing through Persia, settling in Armenia and then going farther down to Syria, Egypt and North Africa. These two tribes though of a common remote Indian origin must, however, be kept strictly apart from one another in our investigation, for they stand to each other in the same relation as they stand to the various dialects in India. The linguistic proof of origin can therefore now not go further than to establish the fact that the Gipsy language is in its very essence an originally Indian dialect, enriched in its vocabulary from the languages of the peoples among whom the Gipsies had sojourned, whilst in its grammatical inflection it has slowly been modified, to such an extent that in some cases, like the English or the Servian, barely a skeleton has remained.

Notwithstanding the statements to the contrary, a Gipsy from Greece or Rumania could no longer understand a Gipsy of England or Germany, so profound is the difference. But the words which have entered into the Gipsy language, borrowed as they were from the Greeks, Hungarians, Rumanians, &c., are not only an indication of the route taken—and this is the only use that has hitherto been made of the vocabulary—but they are of the highest importance for fixing the time when the Gipsies had come in contact with these languages. The absence of Arabic is a positive proof that not only did the Gipsies not come via Arabia (as maintained by De Goeje) before they reached Europe, but that they could not even have been living for any length of time in Persia after the Mahommedan conquest, or at any rate that they could not have come in contact with such elements of the population as had already adopted Arabic in addition to Persian. But the form of the Persian words found among European Gipsies, and similarly the form of the Armenian words found in that language, are a clear indication that the Gipsies could not have come in contact with these languages before Persian had assumed its modern form and before Armenian had been changed from the old to the modern form of language. Still more strong and clear is the evidence in the case of the Greek and Rumanian words. If the Gipsies had lived in Greece, as some contend, from very ancient times, some at least of the old Greek words would be found in their language, and similarly the Slavonic words would be of an archaic character, whilst on the contrary we find medieval Byzantine forms, nay, modern Greek forms, among the Gipsy vocabulary collected from Gipsies in Germany or Italy, England or France; a proof positive that they could not have been in Europe much earlier than the approximate date given above of the 11th or 12th century. We then find from a grammatical point of view the same deterioration, say among the English or Spanish Gipsies, as has been noticed in the Gipsy dialect of Armenia. It is no longer Gipsy, but a corrupt English or Spanish adapted to some remnants of Gipsy inflections. The purest form has been preserved among the Greek Gipsies and to a certain extent among the Rumanian. Notably through Miklosich’s researches and comparative studies, it is possible to follow the slow change step by step and to prove, at any rate, that, as far as Europe is concerned, the language of these Gipsies was one and the same, and that it was slowly split up into a number of dialects (13 Miklosich, 14 Colocci) which shade off into one another, and which by their transitional forms mark the way in which the Gipsies have travelled, as also proved by historical evidence. The Welsh dialect, known by few, has retained, through its isolation, some of the ancient forms.

Religion, Habits and Customs.—Those who have lived among the Gipsies will readily testify that their religious views are a strange medley of the local faith, which they everywhere embrace, and some old-world superstitions which they have in common with many nations. Among the Greeks they belong to the Greek Church, among the Mahommedans they are Mahommedans, in Rumania they belong to the National Church. In Hungary they are mostly Catholics, according to the faith of the inhabitants of that country. They have no ethical principles and they do not recognize the obligations of the Ten Commandments. There is extreme moral laxity in the relation of the two sexes, and on the whole they take life easily, and are complete fatalists. At the same time they are great cowards, and they play the rôle of the fool or the jester in the popular anecdotes of eastern Europe. There the poltroon is always a Gipsy, but he is good-humoured and not so malicious as those Gipsies who had endured the hardships of outlawry in the west of Europe.

There is nothing specifically of an Oriental origin in their religious vocabulary, and the words Devla (God), Bang (devil) or Trushul (Cross), in spite of some remote similarity, must be taken as later adaptations, and not as remnants of an old Sky-worship or Serpent-worship. In general their beliefs, customs, tales, &c. belong to the common stock of general folklore, and many of their symbolical expressions find their exact counterpart in Rumanian and modern Greek, and often read as if they were direct translations from these languages. Although they love their children, it sometimes happens that a Gipsy mother will hold her child by the legs and beat the father with it. In Rumania and Turkey among the settled Gipsies a good number are carriers and bricklayers; and the women take their full share in every kind of work, no matter how hard it may be. The nomadic Gipsies carry on the ancient craft of coppersmiths, or workers in metal; they also make sieves and traps, but in the East they are seldom farriers or horse-dealers. They are far-famed for their music, in which art they are unsurpassed. The Gipsy musicians belong mostly to the class who originally were serfs. They were retained at the courts of the boyars for their special talent in reciting old ballads and love songs and their deftness in playing, notably the guitar and the fiddle. The former was used as an accompaniment to the singing of either love ditties and popular songs or more especially in recital or heroic ballads and epic songs; the latter for dances and other amusements. They were the troubadours and minstrels of eastern Europe; the largest collection of Rumanian popular ballads and songs was gathered by G. Dem. Teodorescu from a Gipsy minstrel, Petre Sholkan; and not a few of the songs of the guslars among the Servians and other Slavonic nations in the Balkans come also from the Gipsies. They have also retained the ancient tunes and airs, from the dreamy “doina” of the Rumanian to the fiery “czardas” of the Hungarian or the stately “hora” of the Bulgarian. Liszt went so far as to ascribe to the Gipsies the origin of the Hungarian national music. This is an exaggeration, as seen by the comparison of the Gipsy music in other parts of south-east Europe; but they undoubtedly have given the most faithful expression to the national temperament. Equally famous is the Gipsy woman for her knowledge of occult practices. She is the real witch; she knows charms to injure the enemy or to help a friend. She can break the charm if made by others. But neither in the one case nor in the other, and in fact as little as in their songs, do they use the Gipsy language. It is either the local language of the natives as in the case of charms, or a slightly Romanized form of Greek, Rumanian or Slavonic. The old Gipsy woman is also known for her skill in palmistry and fortune-telling by means of a special set of cards, the well-known Tarok of the Gipsies. They have also a large stock of fairy tales resembling in each country the local fairy tales, in Greece agreeing with the Greek, and in Rumania with the Rumanian fairy tales. It is doubtful, however, whether they have contributed to the dissemination of these tales throughout Europe, for a large number of Gipsy tales can be shown to have been known in Europe long before the appearance of the Gipsies, and others are so much like those of other nations that the borrowing may be by the Gipsy from the Greek, Slav or Rumanian. It is, however, possible that playing-cards might have been introduced to Europe through the Gipsies. The oldest reference to cards is found in the Chronicle of Nicolaus of Cavellazzo, who says that the cards were first brought into Viterbo in 1379 from the land of the Saracens, probably from Asia Minor or the Balkans. They spread very quickly, but no one has been able as yet to trace definitely the source whence they were first brought. Without 42 entering here into the history of the playing-cards and of the different forms of the faces and of the symbolical meaning of the different designs, one may assume safely that the cards, before they were used for mere pastime or for gambling, may originally have had a mystical meaning and been used as sortes in various combinations. To this very day the oldest form is known by the hitherto unexplained name of Tarock, played in Bologna at the beginning of the 15th century and retained by the French under the form Tarot, connected direct with the Gipsies, “Le Tarot des Bohémiens.” It was noted above that the oldest chronicler (Presbyter) who describes the appearance of the Gipsies in 1416 in Germany knows them by their Italian name “Cianos,” so evidently he must have known of their existence in Italy previous to any date recorded hitherto anywhere, and it is therefore not impossible that coming from Italy they brought with them also their book of divination.

Physical Characteristics.—As a race they are of small stature varying in colour from the dark tan of the Arab to the whitish hue of the Servian and the Pole. In fact there are some white-coloured Gipsies, especially in Servia and Dalmatia, and these are often not easily distinguishable from the native peoples, except that they are more lithe and sinewy, better proportioned and more agile in their movements than the thick-set Slavs and the mixed race of the Rumanians. By one feature, however, they are easily distinguishable and recognize one another, viz. by the lustre of their eyes and the whiteness of their teeth. Some are well built; others have the features of a mongrel race, due no doubt to intermarriage with outcasts of other races. The women age very quickly and the mortality among the Gipsies is great, especially among children; among adults it is chiefly due to pulmonary diseases. They love display and Oriental showiness, bright-coloured dresses, ornaments, bangles, &c.; red and green are the colours mostly favoured by the Gipsies in the East. Along with a showy handkerchief or some shining gold coins round their necks, they will wear torn petticoats and no covering on their feet. And even after they have been assimilated and have forgotten their own language they still retain some of the prominent features of their character, such as the love of inordinate display and gorgeous dress; and their moral defects not only remain for a long time as glaring as among those who live the life of vagrants, but even become more pronounced. The Gipsy of to-day is no longer what his forefathers have been. The assimilation with the nations in the near East and the steps taken for the suppression of vagrancy in the West, combine to denationalize the Gipsy and to make “Români Chib” a thing of the past.

GIRAFFE, a corruption of Zarāfah, the Arabic name for the tallest of all mammals, and the typical representative of the family Giraffidae, the distinctive characters of which are given in the article Pecora, where the systematic position of the group is indicated. The classic term “camelopard,” probably introduced when these animals were brought from North Africa to the Roman amphitheatre, has fallen into complete disuse.

In common with the okapi, giraffes have skin-covered horns on the head, but in these animals, which form the genus Giraffa, these appendages are present in both sexes; and there is often an unpaired one in advance of the pair on the forehead. Among other characteristics of these animals may be noticed the great length of the neck and limbs, the complete absence of lateral toes and the long and tufted tail. The tongue is remarkable for its great length, measuring about 17 in. in the dead animal, and for its great elasticity and power of muscular contraction while living. It is covered with numerous large papillae, and forms, like the trunk of the elephant, an admirable organ for the examination and prehension of food. Giraffes are inhabitants of open country, and owing to their length of neck and long flexible tongues are enabled to browse on tall trees, mimosas being favourites. To drink or graze they are obliged to straddle the fore-legs apart; but they seldom feed on grass and are capable of going long without water. When standing among mimosas they so harmonize with their surroundings that they are difficult of detection. Formerly giraffes were found in large herds, but persecution has reduced their number and led to their extermination from many districts. Although in late Tertiary times widely spread over southern Europe and India, giraffes are now confined to Africa south of the Sahara.

Apart from the distinct Somali giraffe (Giraffa reticulata), characterized by its deep liver-red colour marked with a very coarse network of fine white lines, there are numerous local forms of the ordinary giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). The northern races, such as the Nubian G. c. typica and the Kordofan G. c. antiquorum, are characterized by the large frontal horn of the bulls, the white legs, the network type of coloration and the pale tint. The latter feature is specially developed in the Nigerian G. c. peralta, which is likewise of the northern type. The Baringo G. c. rothschildi also has a large frontal horn and white legs, but the spots in the bulls are very dark and those of the females jagged. In the Kilimanjaro G. c. tippelskirchi the frontal horn is often developed in the bulls, but the legs are frequently spotted to the fetlocks. Farther south the frontal horn tends to disappear more or less completely, as in the Angola G. c. angolensis, the Transvaal G. c. wardi and the Cape G. c. capensis, while the legs are fully spotted and the colour-pattern on the body (especially in the last-named) is more of a blotched type, that is to say, consists of dark blotches on a fawn ground, instead of a network of light lines on a dark ground.

GIRALDI, GIGLIO GREGORIO [Lilius Gregorius Gyraldus] (1479-1552), Italian scholar and poet, was born on the 14th of June 1479, at Ferrara, where he early distinguished himself by his talents and acquirements. On the completion of his literary course he removed to Naples, where he lived on familiar terms with Jovianus Pontanus and Sannazaro; and subsequently to Lombardy, where he enjoyed the favour of the Mirandola family. At Milan in 1507 he studied Greek under Chalcondylas; and shortly afterwards, at Modena, he became tutor to Ercole (afterwards Cardinal) Rangone. About the year 1514 he removed to Rome, where, under Clement VII., he held the office of apostolic protonotary; but having in the sack of that city (1527), which almost coincided with the death of his patron Cardinal Rangone, lost all his property, he returned in poverty once more to Mirandola, whence again he was driven by the troubles consequent on the assassination of the reigning prince in 1533. The rest of his life was one long struggle with ill-health, poverty and neglect; and he is alluded to with sorrowful regret by Montaigne in one of his Essais (i. 34), as having, like Sebastian Castalio, ended his days in utter destitution. He died at Ferrara in February 1552; and his epitaph makes touching and graceful allusion to the sadness of his end. Giraldi was a man of very 44 extensive erudition; and numerous testimonies to his profundity and accuracy have been given both by contemporary and by later scholars. His Historia de diis gentium marked a distinctly forward step in the systematic study of classical mythology; and by his treatises De annis et mensibus, and on the Calendarium Romanum et Graecum, he contributed to bring about the reform of the calendar, which was ultimately effected by Pope Gregory XIII. His Progymnasma adversus literas et literatos deserves mention at least among the curiosities of literature; and among his other works to which reference is still occasionally made are Historiae poëtarum Graecorum ac Latinorum; De poëtis suorum temporum; and De sepultura ac vario sepeliendi ritu. Giraldi was also an elegant Latin poet.

GIRALDI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1504-1573), surnamed Cynthius, Cinthio or Cintio, Italian novelist and poet, born at Ferrara in November 1504, was educated at the university of his native town, where in 1525 he became professor of natural philosophy, and, twelve years afterwards, succeeded Celio Calcagnini in the chair of belles-lettres. Between 1542 and 1560 he acted as private secretary, first to Ercole II. and afterwards to Alphonso II. of Este; but having, in connexion with a literary quarrel in which he had got involved, lost the favour of his patron in the latter year, he removed to Mondovi, where he remained as a teacher of literature till 1568. Subsequently, on the invitation of the senate of Milan, he occupied the chair of rhetoric at Pavia till 1573, when, in search of health, he returned to his native town, where on the 30th of December he died. Besides an epic entitled Ercole (1557), in twenty-six cantos, Giraldi wrote nine tragedies, the best known of which, Orbecche, was produced in 1541. The sanguinary and disgusting character of the plot of this play, and the general poverty of its style, are, in the opinion of many of its critics, almost fully redeemed by occasional bursts of genuine and impassioned poetry; of one scene in the third act in particular it has even been affirmed that, if it alone were sufficient to decide the question, the Orbecche would be the finest play in the world. Of the prose works of Giraldi the most important is the Hecatommithi or Ecatomiti, a collection of tales told somewhat after the manner of Boccaccio, but still more closely resembling the novels of Giraldi’s contemporary Bandello, only much inferior in workmanship to the productions of either author in vigour, liveliness and local colour. Something, but not much, however, may be said in favour of their professed claim to represent a higher standard of morality. Originally published at Monteregale, Sicily, in 1565, they were frequently reprinted in Italy, while a French translation by Chappuys appeared in 1583 and one in Spanish in 1590. They have a peculiar interest to students of English literature, as having furnished, whether directly or indirectly, the plots of Measure for Measure and Othello. That of the latter, which is to be found in the Hecatommithi (iii. 7), is conjectured to have reached Shakespeare through the French translation; while that of the former (Hecat. viii. 5) is probably to be traced to Whetstone’s Promos and Cassandra (1578), an adaptation of Cinthio’s story, and to his Heptamerone (1582), which contains a direct English translation. To Giraldi also must be attributed the plot of Beaumont and Fletcher’s Custom of the Country.

GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS (1146?-1220), medieval historian, also called Gerald de Barri, was born in Pembrokeshire. He was the son of William de Barri and Augharat, a daughter of Gerald, the ancestors of the Fitzgeralds and the Welsh princess, Nesta, formerly mistress of King Henry I. Falling under the influence of his uncle, David Fitzgerald, bishop of St David’s, he determined to enter the church. He studied at Paris, and his works show that he had applied himself closely to the study of the Latin poets. In 1172 he was appointed to collect tithe in Wales, and showed such vigour that he was made archdeacon. In 1176 an attempt was made to elect him bishop of St David’s, but Henry II. was unwilling to see any one with powerful native connexions a bishop in Wales. In 1180, after another visit to Paris, he was appointed commissiary to the bishop of St David’s, who had ceased to reside. But Giraldus threw up his post, indignant at the indifference of the bishop to the welfare of his see. In 1184 he was made one of the king’s chaplains, and was elected to accompany Prince John on his voyage to Ireland. While there he wrote a Topographia Hibernica, which is full of information, and a strongly prejudiced history of the conquest, the Expugnatio Hibernica. In 1186 he read his work with great applause before the masters and scholars of Oxford. In 1188 he was sent into Wales with the primate Baldwin to preach the Third Crusade. Giraldus declares that the mission was highly successful; in any case it gave him the material for his Itinerarium Cambrense, which is, after the Expugnatio, his best known work. He accompanied the archbishop, who intended him to be the historian of the Crusade, to the continent, with the intention of going to the Holy Land. But in 1189 he was sent back to Wales by the king, who knew his influence was great, to keep order among his countrymen. Soon after he was absolved from his crusading vow. According to his own statements, which often tend to exaggeration, he was offered both the sees of Bangor and Llandaff, but refused them. From 1192 to 1198 he lived in retirement at Lincoln and devoted himself to literature. It is probably during this period that he wrote the Gemma ecclesiastica (discussing disputed points of doctrine, ritual, &c.) and the Vita S. Remigii. In 1198 he was elected bishop of St David’s. But Hubert Walter, the archbishop of Canterbury, was determined to have in that position no Welshman who would dispute the metropolitan pretensions of the English primates. The king, for political reasons, supported Hubert Walter. For four years Giraldus exerted himself to get his election confirmed, and to vindicate the independence of St David’s from Canterbury. He went three times to Rome. He wrote the De jure Meneviensis ecclesiae in support of the claims of his diocese. He made alliances with the princes of North and South Wales. He called a general synod of his diocese. He was accused of stirring up rebellion among the Welsh, and the justiciar proceeded against him. At length in 1202 the pope annulled all previous elections, and ordered a new one. The prior of Llanthony was finally elected. Gerald was immediately reconciled to the king and archbishop; the utmost favour was shown to him; even the expenses of his unsuccessful election were paid. He spent the rest of his life in retirement, though there was some talk of his being made a cardinal. He certainly survived John.

The works of Giraldus are partly polemical and partly historical. His value as a historian is marred by his violent party spirit; some of his historical tracts, such as the Liber de instructione principum and the Vita Galfridi Archiepiscopi Eborecensis, seem to have been designed as political pamphlets. Henry II., Hubert Walter and William Longchamp, the chancellor of Richard I., are the objects of his worst invectives. His own pretensions to the see of St David are the motive of many of his misrepresentations. But he is one of the most vivid and witty of our medieval historians.

GIRANDOLE (from the Ital. girandola), an ornamental branched candlestick of several lights. It came into use about the second half of the 17th century, and was commonly made and used in pairs. It has always been, comparatively speaking, a luxurious appliance for lighting, and in the great 18th-century period of French house decoration the famous ciseleurs designed some exceedingly beautiful examples. A great variety of metals has been used for the purpose—sometimes, as in the case of the candlestick, girandoles have been made in hard woods. Gilded bronze has been a very frequent medium, but for table purposes silver is still the favourite material.

GIRARD, JEAN BAPTISTE [known as “Le Père Girard” or “Le Père Gregoire”] (1765-1850), French-Swiss educationalist, was born at Fribourg and educated for the priesthood at Lucerne. He was the fifth child in a family of fourteen, and his gift for teaching was early shown at home in helping his mother with the 45 younger children; and after passing through his noviciate he spent some time as an instructor in convents, notably at Würzburg (1785-1788). Then for ten years he was busy with religious duty. In 1798, full of Kantian ideas, he published an essay outlining a scheme of national Swiss education; and in 1804 he began his career as a public teacher, first in the elementary school at Fribourg (1805-1823), then (being driven away by Jesuit hostility) in the gymnasium at Lucerne till 1834, when he retired to Fribourg and devoted himself with the production of his books on education, De l’enseignement régulier de la langue maternelle (1834, 9th ed. 1894; Eng. trans. by Lord Ebrington, The Mother Tongue, 1847), and Cours éducatif (1844-1846). Father Girard’s reputation and influence as an enthusiast in the cause of education became potent not only in Switzerland, where he was hailed as a second Pestalozzi, but in other countries. He had a genius for teaching, his method of stimulating the intelligence of the children at Fribourg and interesting them actively in learning, and not merely cramming them with rules and facts, being warmly praised by the Swiss educationalist François Naville (1784-1846) in his treatise on public education (1832). His undogmatic method and his Liberal Christianity brought him into conflict with the Jesuits, but his aim was, in all his teaching, to introduce the moral idea into the minds of his pupils by familiarizing them with the right or wrong working of the facts he brought to their attention, and thus to elevate character all through the educational curriculum.

GIRARD, PHILIPPE HENRI DE (1775-1845), French mechanician, was born at Lourmarin, Vaucluse, on the 1st of February 1775. He is chiefly known in connexion with flax-spinning machinery. Napoleon having in 1810 decreed a reward of one million francs to the inventor of the best machine for spinning flax, Girard succeeded in producing what was required. But he never received the promised reward, although in 1853, after his death, a comparatively small pension was voted to his heirs, and having relied on the money to pay the expenses of his invention he got into serious financial difficulties. He was obliged, in 1815, to abandon the flax mills he had established in France, and at the invitation of the emperor of Austria founded a flax mill and a factory for his machines at Hirtenberg. In 1825, at the invitation of the emperor Alexander I. of Russia, he went to Poland, and erected near Warsaw a flax manufactory, round which grew up a village which received the name of Girardow. In 1818 he built a steamer to run on the Danube. He did not return to Paris till 1844, where he still found some of his old creditors ready to press their claims, and he died in that city on the 26th of August 1845. He was also the author of numerous minor inventions.

GIRARD, STEPHEN (1750-1831), American financier and philanthropist, founder of Girard College in Philadelphia, was born in a suburb of Bordeaux, France, on the 20th of May 1750. He lost the sight of his right eye at the age of eight and had little education. His father was a sea captain, and the son cruised to the West Indies and back during 1764-1773, was licensed captain in 1773, visited New York in 1774, and thence with the assistance of a New York merchant began to trade to and from New Orleans and Port au Prince. In May 1776 he was driven into the port of Philadelphia by a British fleet and settled there as a merchant; in June of the next year he married Mary (Polly) Lum, daughter of a shipbuilder, who, two years later, after Girard’s becoming a citizen of Pennsylvania (1778), built for him the “Water Witch,” the first of a fleet trading with New Orleans and the West Indies—most of Girard’s ships being named after his favourite French authors, such as “Rousseau,” “Voltaire,” “Helvétius” and “Montesquieu.” His beautiful young wife became insane and spent the years from 1790 to her death in 1815 in the Pennsylvania Hospital. In 1810 Girard used about a million dollars deposited by him with the Barings of London for the purchase of shares of the much depreciated stock of the Bank of the United States—a purchase of great assistance to the United States government in bolstering European confidence in its securities. When the Bank was not rechartered the building and the cashier’s house in Philadelphia were purchased at a third of the original cost by Girard, who in May 1812 established the Bank of Stephen Girard. He subscribed in 1814 for about 95% of the government’s war loan of $5,000,000, of which only $20,000 besides had been taken, and he generously offered at par shares which upon his purchase had gone to a premium. He pursued his business vigorously in person until the 12th of February 1830, when he was injured in the street by a truck; he died on the 26th of December 1831. His public spirit had been shown during his life not only financially but personally; in 1793, during the plague of yellow fever in Philadelphia, he volunteered to act as manager of the wretched hospital at Bush Hill, and with the assistance of Peter Helm had the hospital cleansed and its work systematized; again during the yellow fever epidemic of 1797-1798 he took the lead in relieving the poor and caring for the sick. Even more was his philanthropy shown in his disposition by will of his estate, which was valued at about $7,500,000, and doubtless the greatest fortune accumulated by any individual in America up to that time. Of his fortune he bequeathed $116,000 to various Philadelphia charities, $500,000 to the same city for the improvement of the Delaware water front, $300,000 to Pennsylvania for internal improvements, and the bulk of his estate to Philadelphia, to be used in founding a school or college, in providing a better police system, and in making municipal improvements and lessening taxation. Most of his bequest to the city was to be used for building and maintaining a school “to provide for such a number of poor male white orphan children ... a better education as well as a more comfortable maintenance than they usually receive from the application of the public funds.” His will planned most minutely for the erection of this school, giving details as to the windows, doors, walls, &c.; and it contained the following phrase: “I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any duty whatsoever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.... I desire to keep the tender minds of orphans ... free from the excitements which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.” Girard’s heirs-at-law contested the will in 1836, and they were greatly helped by a public prejudice aroused by the clause cited; in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1844 Daniel Webster, appearing for the heirs, made a famous plea for the Christian religion, but Justice Joseph Story handed down an opinion adverse to the heirs (Vidals v. Girard’s Executors). Webster was opposed in this suit by John Sergeant and Horace Binney. Girard specified that those admitted to the college must be white male orphans, of legitimate birth and good character, between the ages of six and ten; that no boy was to be permitted to stay after his eighteenth year; and that as regards admissions preference was to be shown, first to orphans born in Philadelphia, second to orphans born in any other part of Pennsylvania, third to orphans born in New York City, and fourth to orphans born in New Orleans. Work upon the buildings was begun in 1833, and the college was opened on the 1st of January 1848, a technical point of law making instruction conditioned upon the completion of the five buildings, of which the principal one, planned by Thomas Ustick Walter (1804-1887), has been called “the most perfect Greek temple in existence.” To a sarcophagus in this main building the remains of Stephen Girard were removed in 1851. In the 40 acres of the college grounds there were in 1909 18 buildings (valued at $3,350,000), 1513 pupils, and a total “population,” including students, teachers and all employes, of 1907. The value of the Girard estate in the year 1907 was $35,000,000, of which $550,000 was devoted to other charities than Girard College. The control of the college was under a board chosen by the city councils until 1869, when by act of the legislature it was transferred to trustees appointed by the Common Pleas judges of the city of Philadelphia. The course of training is partly industrial—for a long time graduates were indentured till they came of age—but it is also preparatory to college entrance.

46

GIRARDIN, DELPHINE DE (1804-1855), French author, was born at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 26th of January 1804. Her mother, the well-known Madame Sophie Gay, brought her up in the midst of a brilliant literary society. She published two volumes of miscellaneous pieces, Essais poétiques (1824) and Nouveaux Essais poétiques (1825). A visit to Italy in 1827, during which she was enthusiastically welcomed by the literati of Rome and even crowned in the capitol, was productive of various poems, of which the most ambitious was Napoline (1833). Her marriage in 1831 to Émile de Girardin (see below) opened up a new literary career. The contemporary sketches which she contributed from 1836 to 1839 to the feuilleton of La Presse, under the nom de plume of Charles de Launay, were collected under the title of Lettres parisiennes (1843), and obtained a brilliant success. Contes d’une vieille fille à ses neveux (1832), La Canne de Monsieur de Balzac (1836) and Il ne faut pas jouer avec la douleur (1853) are among the best-known of her romances; and her dramatic pieces in prose and verse include L’École des journalistes (1840), Judith (1843), Cléopâtre (1847), Lady Tartufe (1853), and the one-act comedies, C’est la faute du mari (1851), La Joie fait peur (1854), Le Chapeau d’un horloger (1854) and Une Femme qui déteste son mari, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In the literary society of her time Madame Girardin exercised no small personal influence, and among the frequenters of her drawing-room were Théophile Gautier and Balzac, Alfred de Musset and Victor Hugo. She died on the 29th of June 1855. Her collected works were published in six volumes (1860-1861).

GIRARDIN, ÉMILE DE (1802-1881), French publicist, was born, not in Switzerland in 1806 of unknown parents, but (as was recognized in 1837) in Paris in 1802, the son of General Alexandre de Girardin and of Madame Dupuy, wife of a Parisian advocate. His first publication was a novel, Émile, dealing with his birth and early life, and appeared under the name of Girardin in 1827. He became inspector of fine arts under the Martignac ministry just before the revolution of 1830, and was an energetic and passionate journalist. Besides his work on the daily press he issued miscellaneous publications which attained an enormous circulation. His Journal des connaissances utiles had 120,000 subscribers, and the initial edition of his Almanach de France (1834) ran to a million copies. In 1836 he inaugurated cheap journalism in a popular Conservative organ, La Presse, the subscription to which was only forty francs a year. This undertaking involved him in a duel with Armand Carrel, the fatal result of which made him refuse satisfaction to later opponents. In 1839 he was excluded from the Chamber of Deputies, to which he had been four times elected, on the plea of his foreign birth, but was admitted in 1842. He resigned early in February 1847, and on the 24th of February 1848 sent a note to Louis Philippe demanding his resignation and the regency of the duchess of Orleans. In the Legislative Assembly he voted with the Mountain. He pressed eagerly in his paper for the election of Prince Louis Napoleon, of whom he afterwards became one of the most violent opponents. In 1856 he sold La Presse, only to resume it in 1862, but its vogue was over, and Girardin started a new journal, La Liberté, the sale of which was forbidden in the public streets. He supported Émile Ollivier and the Liberal Empire, but plunged into vehement journalism again to advocate war against Prussia. Of his many subsequent enterprises the most successful was the purchase of Le Petit Journal, which served to advocate the policy of Thiers, though he himself did not contribute. The crisis of the 16th of May 1877, when Jules Simon fell from power, made him resume his pen to attack MacMahon and the party of reaction in La France and in Le Petit Journal. Émile de Girardin married in 1831 Delphine Gay (see above), and after her death in 1855 Guillemette Joséphine Brunold, countess von Tieffenbach, widow of Prince Frederick of Nassau. He was divorced from his second wife in 1872.

GIRARDON, FRANÇOIS (1628-1715), French sculptor, was born at Troyes on the 17th of March 1628. As a boy he had for master a joiner and wood-carver of his native town, named Baudesson, under whom he is said to have worked at the château of Liébault, where he attracted the notice of Chancellor Séguier. By the chancellor’s influence Girardon was first removed to Paris and placed in the studio of François Anguier, and afterwards sent to Rome. In 1652 he was back in France, and seems at once to have addressed himself with something like ignoble subserviency to the task of conciliating the court painter Charles Le Brun. Girardon is reported to have declared himself incapable of composing a group, whether with truth or from motives of policy it is impossible to say. This much is certain, that a very large proportion of his work was carried out from designs by Le Brun, and shows the merits and defects of Le Brun’s manner—a great command of ceremonial pomp in presenting his subject, coupled with a large treatment of forms which if it were more expressive might be imposing. The court which Girardon paid to the “premier peintre du roi” was rewarded. An immense quantity of work at Versailles was entrusted to him, and in recognition of the successful execution of four figures for the Bains d’Apollon, Le Brun induced the king to present his protégé personally with a purse of 300 louis, as a distinguishing mark of royal favour. In 1650 Girardon was made member of the Academy, in 1659 professor, in 1674 “adjoint au recteur,” and finally in 1695 chancellor. Five years before (1690), on the death of Le Brun, he had also been appointed “inspecteur général des ouvrages de sculpture”—a place of power and profit. In 1699 he completed the bronze equestrian statue of Louis XIV., erected by the town of Paris on the Place Louis le Grand. This statue was melted down during the Revolution, and is known to us only by a small bronze model (Louvre) finished by Girardon himself. His Tomb of Richelieu (church of the Sorbonne) was saved from destruction by Alexandre Lenoir, who received a bayonet thrust in protecting the head of the cardinal from mutilation. It is a capital example of Girardon’s work, and the theatrical pomp of its style is typical of the funeral sculpture of the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV.; but amongst other important specimens yet remaining may also be cited the Tomb of Louvois (St Eustache), that of Bignon, the king’s librarian, executed in 1656 (St Nicolas du Chardonneret), and decorative sculptures in the Galerie d’Apollon and Chambre du roi in the Louvre. Mention should not be omitted of the group, signed and dated 1699, “The Rape of Proserpine” at Versailles, which also contains the “Bull of Apollo.” Although chiefly occupied at Paris Girardon never forgot his native Troyes, the museum of which town contains some of his best works, including the marble busts of Louis XIV. and Maria Theresa. In the hôtel de ville is still shown a medallion of Louis XIV., and in the church of St Rémy a bronze crucifix of some importance—both works by his hand. He died in Paris in 1715.

GIRART DE ROUSSILLON, an epic figure of the Carolingian cycle of romance. In the genealogy of romance he is a son of Doon de Mayence, and he appears in different and irreconcilable 47 circumstances in many of the chansons de geste. The legend of Girart de Roussillon is contained in a Vita Girardi de Roussillon (ed. P. Meyer, in Romania, 1878), dating from the beginning of the 12th century and written probably by a monk of the abbey of Pothières or of Vezelai, both of which were founded in 860 by Girart; in Girart de Roussillon, a chanson de geste written early in the 12th century in a dialect midway between French and Provençal, and apparently based on an earlier Burgundian poem; in a 14th century romance in alexandrines (ed. T. J. A. P. Mignard, Paris and Dijon, 1878); and in a prose romance by Jehan Wauquelin in 1447 (ed. L. de Montille, Paris, 1880). The historical Girard, son of Leuthard and Grimildis, was a Burgundian chief who was count of Paris in 837, and embraced the cause of Lothair against Charles the Bald. He fought at Fontenay in 841, and doubtless followed Lothair to Aix. In 855 he became governor of Provence for Lothair’s son Charles, king of Provence (d. 863). His wife Bertha defended Vienne unsuccessfully against Charles the Bald in 870, and Girard, who had perhaps aspired to be the titular ruler of the northern part of Provence, which he had continued to administer under Lothair II. until that prince’s death in 869, retired with his wife to Avignon, where he died probably in 877, certainly before 879. The tradition of his piety, of the heroism of his wife Bertha, and of his wars with Charles passed into romance; but the historical facts are so distorted that in Girart de Roussillon the trouvère makes him the opponent of Charles Martel, to whom he stands in the relation of brother-in-law. He is nowhere described in authentic historic sources as of Roussillon. The title is derived from his castle built on Mount Lassois, near Châtillon-sur-Seine. Southern traditions concerning Count Girart, in which he is made the son of Garin de Monglane, are embodied in Girart de Viane (13th century) by Bertrand de Bar-sur-l’Aube, and in the Aspramonte of Andrea da Barberino, based on the French chanson of Aspremont, where he figures as Girart de Frete or de Fratte.1 Girart de Viane is the recital of a siege of Vienne by Charlemagne, and in Aspramonte Girart de Fratte leads an army of infidels against Charlemagne. Girart de Roussillon was long held to be of Provençal origin, and to be a proof of the existence of an independent Provençal epic, but its Burgundian origin may be taken as proved.

GIRAUD, GIOVANNI, Count (1776-1834), Italian dramatist, of French origin, was born at Rome, and showed a precocious passion for the theatre. His first play, L’Onestà non si vince, was successfully produced in 1798. He took part in politics as an active supporter of Pius VI., but was mainly occupied with the production of his plays, and in 1809 became director-general of the Italian theatres. He died at Naples in 1834. Count Giraud’s comedies, the best of which are Gelosie per equivoco (1807) and L’Ajonell’ imbarazzo (1824), were bright and amusing on the stage, but of no particular literary quality.

GIRDLE (O. Eng. gyrdel, from gyrdan, to gird; cf. Ger. Gürtel, Dutch gordel, from gürten and gorden; “gird” and its doublet “girth” together with the other Teutonic cognates have been referred by some to the root ghar—to seize, enclose, seen in Gr. χείρ, hand, Lat. hortus, garden, and also English yard, garden, garth, &c.), a band of leather or other material worn round the waist, either to confine the loose and flowing outer robes so as to allow freedom of movement, or to fasten and support the garments of the wearer. Among the Romans it was used to confine the tunica, and it formed part of the dress of the soldier; when a man quitted military service he was said, cingulum deponere, to lay aside the girdle. Money being carried in the girdle, zonam perdere signified to lose one’s purse, and, among the Greeks, to cut the girdle was to rob a man of his money.

Girdles and girdle-buckles are not often found in Gallo-Roman graves, but in the graves of Franks and Burgundians they are constantly present, often ornamented with bosses of silver or bronze, chased or inlaid. Sidonius Apollinaris speaks of the Franks as belted round the waist, and Gregory of Tours in the 6th century says that a dagger was carried in the Frankish girdle.

In the Anglo-Saxon dress the girdle makes an unimportant figure, and the Norman knights, as a rule, wore their belts under their hauberks. After the Conquest, however, the artificers gave more attention to a piece whose buckle and tongue invited the work of the goldsmith. Girdles of varying richness are seen on most of the western medieval effigies. That of Queen Berengaria lets the long pendant hang below the knee, following a fashion which frequently reappears.

In the latter part of the 13th century the knight’s surcoat is girdled with a narrow cord at the waist, while the great belt, which had become the pride of the well-equipped cavalier, loops across the hips carrying the heavy sword aslant over the thighs or somewhat to the left of the wearer.

But it is in the second half of the following century that the knightly belt takes its most splendid form. Under the year 1356 the continuator of the chronicle of Nangis notes that the increase of jewelled belts had mightily enhanced the price of pearls. The belt is then worn, as a rule, girdling the hips at some distance below the waist, being probably supported by hooks as is the belt of a modern infantry soldier. The end of the belt, after being drawn through the buckle, is knotted or caught up after the fashion of the tang of the Garter. The waist girdle either disappears from sight or as a narrow and ornamented strap is worn diagonally to help in the support of the belt. A mass of beautiful ornament covers the whole belt, commonly seen as an unbroken line of bosses enriched with curiously worked roundels or lozenges which, when the loose strap-end is abandoned, meet in a splendid morse or clasp on which the enameller and jeweller had wrought their best. About 1420 this fashion tends to disappear, the loose tabards worn over armour in the jousting-yard hindering its display. The belt never regains its importance as an ornament, and, at the beginning of the 16th century, sword and dagger are sometimes seen hanging at the knight’s sides without visible support.

In civil dress the magnificent belt of the 14th century is worn by men of rank over the hips of the tight short-skirted coat, and in that century and in the 15th and 16th there are sumptuary laws to cheek the extravagance of rich girdles worn by men and women whose humble station made them unseemly. Even priests must be rebuked for their silver girdles with baselards hanging from them. Purses, daggers, keys, penners and inkhorns, beads and even books, dangled from girdles in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Afterwards the girdle goes on as a mere strap for holding up the clothing or as a sword-belt. At the Restoration men contrasted the fashion of the court, a light rapier hung from a broad shoulder-belt, with the fashion of the countryside, where a heavy weapon was supported by a narrow waistbelt. Soon afterwards both fashions disappeared. Sword-hangers were concealed by the skirt, and the belt, save in certain military and sporting costumes, has no more been in sight in England. Even as a support for breeches or trousers, the use of braces has gradually supplanted the girdle during the past century.

In most of those parts of the Continent—Brittany, for example—where the peasantry maintains old fashions in clothing, the belt or girdle is still an important part of the clothing. Italian non-commissioned officers find that the Sicilian recruit’s main objection to the first bath of his life-time lies in the fact that he must lay down the cherished belt which carries his few valuables. With the Circassian the belt still buckles on an arsenal of pistols and knives.

48

Folklore and ancient custom are much concerned with the girdle. Bankrupts at one time put it off in open court; French law refused courtesans the right to wear it; Saint Guthlac casts out devils by buckling his girdle round a possessed man; an earl is “a belted earl” since the days when the putting on of a girdle was part of the ceremony of his creation; and fairy tales of half the nations deal with girdles which give invisibility to the wearer.

GIRGA, or Girgeh, a town of Upper Egypt on the W. bank of the Nile, 313 m. S.S.E. of Cairo by rail and about 10 m. N.N.E. of the ruins of Abydos. Pop. (1907) 19,893, of whom about one-third are Copts. The town presents a picturesque appearance from the Nile, which at this point makes a sharp bend. A ruined mosque with a tall minaret stands by the river-brink. Many of the houses are of brick decorated with glazed tiles. The town is noted for the excellence of its pottery. Girga is the seat of a Coptic bishop. It also possesses a Roman Catholic monastery, considered the most ancient in the country. As lately as the middle of the 18th century the town stood a quarter of a mile from the river, but is now on the bank, the intervening space having been washed away, together with a large part of the town, by the stream continually encroaching on its left bank.

GIRGENTI (anc. Agrigentum, q.v.), a town of Sicily, capital of the province which bears its name, and an episcopal see, on the south coast, 58 m. S. by E. of Palermo direct and 84½ m. by rail. Population (1901) 25,024. The town is built on the western summit of the ridge which formed the northern portion of the ancient site; the main street runs from E. to W. on the level, but the side streets are steep and narrow. The cathedral occupies the highest point in the town; it was not founded till the 13th century, taking the place of the so-called temple of Concord. The campanile still preserves portions of its original architecture, but the interior has been modernized. In the chapter-house a famous sarcophagus, with scenes illustrating the myth of Hippolytus, is preserved. There are other scattered remains of 13th-century architecture in the town, while, in the centre of the ancient city, close to the so-called oratory of Phalaris, is the Norman church of S. Nicolo. A small museum in the town contains vases, terra-cottas, a few sculptures, &c. The port of Girgenti, 5½ m. S.W. by rail, now known as Porto Empedocle (population in 1901, 11,529), as the principal place of shipment for sulphur, the mining district beginning immediately north of Girgenti.

GIRISHK, a village and fort of Afghanistan. It stands on the right bank of the Helmund 78 m. W. of Kandahar on the road to Herat; 3641 ft. above the sea. The fort, which is garrisoned from Kandahar and is the residence of the governor of the district (Pusht-i-Rud), has little military value. It commands the fords of the Helmund and the road to Seistan, from which it is about 190 m. distant; and it is the centre of a rich agricultural district. Girishk was occupied by the British during the first Afghan War; and a small garrison of sepoys, under a native officer, successfully withstood a siege of nine months by an overwhelming Afghan force. The Dasht-i-Bakwa stretches beyond Girishk towards Farah, a level plain of considerable width, which tradition assigns as the field of the final contest for supremacy between Russia and England.

GIRNAR, a sacred hill in Western India, in the peninsula of Kathiawar, 10 m. E. of Junagarh town. It consists of five peaks, rising about 3500 ft. above the sea, on which are numerous old Jain temples, much frequented by pilgrims. At the foot of the hill is a rock, with an inscription of Asoka (2nd century B.C.), and also two other inscriptions (dated 150 and 455 A.D.) of great historical importance.

GIRODET DE ROUSSY, ANNE LOUIS (1767-1824), French painter, better known as Girodet-Trioson, was born at Montargis on the 5th of January 1767. He lost his parents in early youth, and the care of his fortune and education fell to the lot of his guardian, M. Trioson, “médecin de mesdames,” by whom he was in later life adopted. After some preliminary studies under a painter named Luquin, Girodet entered the school of David, and at the age of twenty-two he successfully competed for the Prix de Rome. At Rome he executed his “Hippocrate refusant les présents d’Artaxerxès” and “Endymion dormant” (Louvre), a work which was hailed with acclamation at the Salon of 1792. The peculiarities which mark Girodet’s position as the herald of the romantic movement are already evident in his “Endymion.” The firm-set forms, the grey cold colour, the hardness of the execution are proper to one trained in the school of David, but these characteristics harmonize ill with the literary, sentimental and picturesque suggestions which the painter has sought to render. The same incongruity marks Girodet’s “Danaë” and his “Quatre Saisons,” executed for the king of Spain (repeated for Compiègne), and shows itself to a ludicrous extent in his “Fingal” (St Petersburg, Leuchtenberg collection), executed for Napoleon I. in 1802. This work unites the defects of the classic and romantic schools, for Girodet’s imagination ardently and exclusively pursued the ideas excited by varied reading both of classic and of modern literature, and the impressions which he received from the external world afforded him little stimulus or check; he consequently retained the mannerisms of his master’s practice whilst rejecting all restraint on choice of subject. The credit lost by “Fingal” Girodet regained in 1806, when he exhibited “Scène de Déluge” (Louvre), to which (in competition with the “Sabines” of David) was awarded the decennial prize. This success was followed up in 1808 by the production of the “Reddition de Vienne” and “Atala au Tombeau”—a work which went far to deserve its immense popularity, by a happy choice of subject, and remarkable freedom from the theatricality of Girodet’s usual manner, which, however, soon came to the front again in his “Révolte de Caire” (1810). His powers now began to fail, and his habit of working at night and other excesses told upon his constitution; in the Salon of 1812 he exhibited only a “Tête de Vierge”; in 1819 “Pygmalion et Galatée” showed a still further decline of strength; and in 1824—the year in which he produced his portraits of Cathelineau and Bonchamps—Girodet died on the 9th of December.

GIRONDE, a maritime department of south-western France, formed from four divisions of the old province of Guyenne, viz. Bordelais, Bazadais, and parts of Périgord and Agenais. Area, 4140 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 823,925. It is bounded N. by the department of Charente-Inférieure, E. by those of Dordogne and Lot-et-Garonne, S. by that of Landes, and W. by the Bay of Biscay. It takes its name from the river or estuary of the Gironde formed by the union of the Garonne and Dordogne. The department divides itself naturally into a western and an eastern portion. The former, which is termed the Landes (q.v.), occupies more than a third of the department, and consists chiefly of morass or sandy plain, thickly planted with pines and divided from the sea by a long line of dunes. These dunes are planted with pines, which, by binding the sand together with their roots, prevent it from drifting inland and afford a barrier against the sea. On the east the dunes are fringed for some distance by two extensive lakes, Carcans and Lacanau, communicating with each other and with the Bay of Arcachon, near the southern extremity of the department. The Bay of Arcachon contains numerous islands, and on the land side forms a vast shallow lagoon, a considerable portion of which, however, has been drained and converted into arable land. The eastern portion of the department consists chiefly of a succession of hill and dale, and, especially in the valley of the Gironde, is very fertile. The estuary of the Gironde is about 45 m. in length, and varies in breadth from 2 to 6 m. It presents a succession of islands and mud banks which divide it into two channels and render navigation somewhat difficult. It is, however, well 49 buoyed and lighted, and has a mean depth of 21 ft. There are extensive marshes on the right bank to the north of Blaye, and the shores on the left are characterized, especially towards the mouth, by low-lying polders protected by dikes and composed of fertile salt marshes. At the mouth of the Gironde stands the famous tower of Cordouan, one of the finest lighthouses of the French coast. It was built between the years 1585 and 1611 by the architect and engineer Louis de Foix, and added to towards the end of the 18th century. The principal affluent of the Dordogne in this department is the Isle. The feeders of the Garonne are, with the exception of the Dropt, all small. West of the Garonne the only river of importance is the Leyre, which flows into the Bay of Arcachon. The climate is humid and mild and very hot in summer. Wheat, rye, maize, oats and tobacco are grown to a considerable extent. The corn produced, however, does not meet the wants of the inhabitants. The culture of the vine is by far the most important branch of industry carried on (see Wine), the vineyards occupying about one-seventh of the surface of the department. The wine-growing districts are the Médoc, Graves, Côtes, Palus, Entre-deux-Mers and Sauternes. The Médoc is a region of 50 m. in length by about 6 m. in breadth, bordering the left banks of the Garonne and the Gironde between Bordeaux and the sea. The Graves country forms a zone 30 m. in extent, stretching along the left bank of the Garonne from the neighbourhood of Bordeaux to Barsac. The Sauternes country lies to the S.E. of the Graves. The Côtes lie on the right bank of the Dordogne and Gironde, between it and the Garonne, and on the left bank of the Garonne. The produce of the Palus, the alluvial land of the valleys, and of the Entre-deux-Mers, situated on the left bank of the Dordogne, is inferior. Fruits and vegetables are extensively cultivated, the peaches and pears being especially fine. Cattle are extensively raised, the Bazadais breed of oxen and the Bordelais breed of milch-cows being well known. Oyster-breeding is carried on on a large scale in the Bay of Arcachon. Large supplies of resin, pitch and turpentine are obtained from the pine woods, which also supply vine-props, and there are well-known quarries of limestone. The manufactures are various, and, with the general trade, are chiefly carried on at Bordeaux (q.v.), the chief town and third port in France. Pauillac, Blaye, Libourne and Arcachon are minor ports. Gironde is divided into the arrondissements of Bordeaux, Blaye, Lesparre, Libourne, Bazas and La Réole, with 49 cantons and 554 communes. The department is served by five railways, the chief of which are those of the Orleans and Southern companies. It forms part of the circumscription of the archbishopric, the appeal-court and the académie (educational division) of Bordeaux, and of the region of the XVIII. army corps, the headquarters of which are at that city. Besides Bordeaux, Libourne, La Réole, Bazas, Blaye, Arcachon, St Emilion and St Macaire are the most noteworthy towns and receive separate treatment. Among the other places of interest the chief are Cadillac, on the right bank of the Garonne, where there is a castle of the 16th century, surrounded by fortifications of the 14th century; Labrède, with a feudal château in which Montesquieu was born and lived; Villandraut, where there is a ruined castle of the 13th century; Uzeste, which has a church begun in 1310 by Pope Clement V.; Mazères with an imposing castle of the 14th century; La Sauve, which has a church (11th and 12th centuries) and other remains of a Benedictine abbey; and Ste Foy-la-Grande, a bastide created in 1255 and afterwards a centre of Protestantism, which is still strong there. La Teste (pop. in 1906, 5699) was the capital in the middle ages of the famous lords of Buch.

GIRONDISTS (Fr. Girondins), the name given to a political party in the Legislative Assembly and National Convention during the French Revolution (1791-1793). The Girondists were, indeed, rather a group of individuals holding certain opinions and principles in common than an organized political party, and the name was at first somewhat loosely applied to them owing to the fact that the most brilliant exponents of their point of view were deputies from the Gironde. These deputies were twelve in number, six of whom—the lawyers Vergniaud, Guadet, Gensonné, Grangeneuve and Jay, and the tradesman Jean François Ducos—sat both in the Legislative Assembly and the National Convention. In the Legislative Assembly these represented a compact body of opinion which, though not as yet definitely republican, was considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism of the majority of the Parisian deputies. Associated with these views was a group of deputies from other parts of France, of whom the most notable were Condorcet, Fauchet, Lasource, Isnard, Kersaint, Henri Larivière, and, above all, Jacques Pierre Brissot, Roland and Pétion, elected mayor of Paris in succession to Bailly on the 16th of November 1791. On the spirit and policy of the Girondists Madame Roland, whose salon became their gathering-place, exercised a powerful influence (see Roland); but such party cohesion as they possessed they owed to the energy of Brissot (q.v.), who came to be regarded as their mouthpiece in the Assembly and the Jacobin Club. Hence the name Brissotins, coined by Camille Desmoulins, which was sometimes substituted for that of Girondins, sometimes closely coupled with it. As strictly party designations these first came into use after the assembling of the National Convention (September 20th, 1792), to which a large proportion of the deputies from the Gironde who had sat in the Legislative Assembly were returned. Both were used as terms of opprobrium by the orators of the Jacobin Club, who freely denounced “the Royalists, the Federalists, the Brissotins, the Girondins and all the enemies of the democracy” (F. Aulard, Soc. des Jacobins, vi. 531).

In the Legislative Assembly the Girondists represented the principle of democratic revolution within and of patriotic defiance to the European powers without. They were all-powerful in the Jacobin Club (see Jacobins), where Brissot’s influence had not yet been ousted by Robespierre, and they did not hesitate to use this advantage to stir up popular passion and intimidate those who sought to stay the progress of the Revolution. They compelled the king in 1792 to choose a ministry composed of their partisans—among them Roland, Dumouriez, Clavière and Servan; and it was they who forced the declaration of war against Austria. In all this there was no apparent line of cleavage between “La Gironde” and the Mountain. Montagnards and Girondists alike were fundamentally opposed to the monarchy; both were democrats as well as republicans; both were prepared to appeal to force in order to realize their ideals; in spite of the accusation of “federalism” freely brought against them, the Girondists desired as little as the Montagnards to break up the unity of France. Yet from the first the leaders of the two parties stood in avowed opposition, in the Jacobin Club as in the Assembly. It was largely a question of temperament. The Girondists were idealists, doctrinaires and theorists rather than men of action; they encouraged, it is true, the “armed petitions” which resulted, to their dismay, in the émeute of the 20th of June; but Roland, turning the ministry of the interior into a publishing office for tracts on the civic virtues, while in the provinces riotous mobs were burning the châteaux unchecked, is more typical of their spirit. With the ferocious fanaticism or the ruthless opportunism of the future organizers of the Terror they had nothing in common. As the Revolution developed they trembled at the anarchic forces they had helped to unchain, and tried in vain to curb them. The overthrow of the monarchy on the 10th of August and the massacres of September were not their work, though they claimed credit for the results achieved.

The crisis of their fate was not slow in coming. It was they who proposed the suspension of the king and the summoning of the National Convention; but they had only consented to overthrow the kingship when they found that Louis XVI. was impervious to their counsels, and, the republic once established, they were anxious to arrest the revolutionary movement which they had helped to set in motion. As Daunou shrewdly observes in his Mémoires, they were too cultivated and too polished to retain their popularity long in times of disturbance, and were therefore the more inclined to work for the establishment of order, which would mean the guarantee of their own 50 power.1 Thus the Girondists, who had been the Radicals of the Legislative Assembly, became the Conservatives of the Convention. But they were soon to have practical experience of the fate that overtakes those who attempt to arrest in mid-career a revolution they themselves have set in motion. The ignorant populace, for whom the promised social millennium had by no means dawned, saw in an attitude seemingly so inconsistent obvious proof of corrupt motives, and there were plenty of prophets of misrule to encourage the delusion—orators of the clubs and the street corners, for whom the restoration of order would have meant well-deserved obscurity. Moreover, the Septembriseurs—Robespierre, Danton, Marat and their lesser satellites—realized that not only their influence but their safety depended on keeping the Revolution alive. Robespierre, who hated the Girondists, whose lustre had so long obscured his own, had proposed to include them in the proscription lists of September; the Mountain to a man desired their overthrow.

The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers. They had behind them the revolutionary Commune, the Sections and the National Guard of Paris, and they had gained control of the Jacobin club, where Brissot, absorbed in departmental work, had been superseded by Robespierre. And as the motive power of this formidable mechanism of force they could rely on the native suspiciousness of the Parisian populace, exaggerated now into madness by famine and the menace of foreign invasion. The Girondists played into their hands. At the trial of Louis XVI. the bulk of them had voted for the “appeal to the people,” and so laid themselves open to the charge of “royalism”; they denounced the domination of Paris and summoned provincial levies to their aid, and so fell under suspicion of “federalism,” though they rejected Buzot’s proposal to transfer the Convention to Versailles. They strengthened the revolutionary Commune by decreeing its abolition, and then withdrawing the decree at the first sign of popular opposition; they increased the prestige of Marat by prosecuting him before the Revolutionary Tribunal, where his acquittal was a foregone conclusion. In the suspicious temper of the times this vacillating policy was doubly fatal. Marat never ceased his denunciations of the “faction des hommes d’État,” by which France was being betrayed to her ruin, and his parrot cry of “Nous sommes trahis!” was re-echoed from group to group in the streets of Paris. The Girondists, for all their fine phrases, were sold to the enemy, as Lafayette, Dumouriez and a hundred others—once popular favourites—had been sold.

The hostility of Paris to the Girondists received a fateful advertisement by the election, on the 15th of February 1793, of the ex-Girondist Jean Nicolas Pache (1746-1823) to the mayoralty. Pache had twice been minister of war in the Girondist government; but his incompetence had laid him open to strong criticism, and on the 4th of February he had been superseded by a vote of the Convention. This was enough to secure him the suffrages of the Paris electors ten days later, and the Mountain was strengthened by the accession of an ally whose one idea was to use his new power to revenge himself on his former colleagues. Pache, with Chaumette, procureur of the Commune, and Hébert, deputy procureur, controlled the armed organization of the Paris Sections, and prepared to turn this against the Convention. The abortive émeute of the 10th of March warned the Girondists of their danger, but the Commission of Twelve appointed on the 18th of May, the arrest of Marat and Hébert, and other precautionary measures, were defeated by the popular risings of the 27th and 31st of May, and, finally, on the 2nd of June, Hanriot with the National Guards purged the Convention of the Girondists. Isnard’s threat, uttered on the 25th of May, to march France upon Paris had been met by Paris marching upon the Convention.

The list drawn up by Hanriot, and endorsed by a decree of the intimidated Convention, included twenty-two Girondist deputies and ten members of the Commission of Twelve, who were ordered to be detained at their lodgings “under the safeguard of the people.” Some submitted, among them Gensonné, Guadet, Vergniaud, Pétion, Birotteau and Boyer-Fonfrède. Others, including Brissot, Louvet, Buzot, Lasource, Grangeneuve, Larivière and Bergoing, escaped from Paris and, joined later by Guadet, Pétion and Birotteau, set to work to organize a movement of the provinces against the capital. This attempt to stir up civil war determined the wavering and frightened Convention. On the 13th of June it voted that the city of Paris had deserved well of the country, and ordered the imprisonment of the detained deputies, the filling up of their places in the Assembly by their suppléants, and the initiation of vigorous measures against the movement in the provinces. The excuse for the Terror that followed was the imminent peril of France, menaced on the east by the advance of the armies of the Coalition, on the west by the Royalist insurrection of La Vendée, and the need for preventing at all costs the outbreak of another civil war. The assassination of Marat by Charlotte Corday (q.v.) only served to increase the unpopularity of the Girondists and to seal their fate. On the 28th of July a decree of the Convention proscribed, as traitors and enemies of their country, twenty-one deputies, the final list of those sent for trial comprising the names of Antiboul, Boilleau the younger, Boyer-Fonfrède, Brissot, Carra, Duchastel, the younger Ducos, Dufriche de Valazé, Duprat, Fauchet, Gardien, Gensonné, Lacaze, Lasource, Lauze-Deperret, Lehardi, Lesterpt-Beauvais, the elder Minvielle, Sillery, Vergniaud and Viger, of whom five were deputies from the Gironde. The names of thirty-nine others were included in the final acte d’accusation, accepted by the Convention on the 24th of October, which stated the crimes for which they were to be tried as their perfidious ambition, their hatred of Paris, their “federalism” and, above all, their responsibility for the attempt of their escaped colleagues to provoke civil war.

The trial of the twenty-one, which began before the Revolutionary Tribunal on the 24th of October, was a mere farce, the verdict a foregone conclusion. On the 31st they were borne to the guillotine in five tumbrils, the corpse of Dufriche de Valazé—who had killed himself—being carried with them. They met death with great courage, singing the refrain “Plutôt la mort que l’esclavage!” Of those who escaped to the provinces the greater number, after wandering about singly or in groups, were either captured and executed or committed suicide, among them Barbaroux, Buzot, Condorcet, Grangeneuve, Guadet, Kersaint, Pétion, Rabaut de Saint-Étienne and Rebecqui. Roland had killed himself at Rouen on the 15th of November, a week after the execution of his wife. Among the very few who finally escaped was Jean Baptiste Louvet, whose Mémoires give a thrilling picture of the sufferings of the fugitives. Incidentally they prove, too, that the sentiment of France was for the time against the Girondists, who were proscribed even in their chief centre, the city of Bordeaux. The survivors of the party made an effort to re-enter the Convention after the fall of Robespierre, but it was not until the 5th of March 1795 that they were formally reinstated. On the 3rd of October of the same year (11 Vendémiaire, year III.) a solemn fête in honour of the Girondist “martyrs of liberty” was celebrated in the Convention. See also the article French Revolution and separate biographies.